2012 QCCQ 17892, 2012 QCCQ 17892

Protection de la jeunesse — 127354 2012 QCCQ 17892 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-024532-111 Date: October 9, 2012 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother The parent -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 9, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on June 16, 2011, whereby the now five year-old child, X , was entrusted to foster care with a possible reintegration to his mother's care, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The child's older brothers are also the subject of similar motions and a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 3.1. The child was reintegrated into the care of the mother. The reintegration began in February 2012; 3.2.

The mother underwent a A program from October 17 th , 2011 until November 24 th , 2011; 3.3. The mother attended support groups. The mother has been seeing a psychologist almost every week after she came out of treatment; 3.4. The family stated being assessed by the B Program in February 2012 after the child and siblings were reintegrated into the

mother's care; 3.5. The mother attended a parenting group at the resource A; 3.6. The mother was sent for two (2) alcohol tests and the results were negative; 3.7.

At the present time, Youth protection involvement is necessary in order to secure the gains made by the mother (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the care of his mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The mother, assisted by Me Shapiro Knight, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The child's father is not declared on his birth certificate. [ 8 ] Me Sepinwall, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Court report prepared by [social worker 2], dated April 16 th , 2012; D-2: Addendum prepared by [social worker 3], dated June 6 th , 2012; D-3: Second Addendum dated October 2 nd , 2012 by [social worker 1]. [ 10 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 11 ] However, the addendum dated June 6, 2012 describes the mother's inability to maintain her sobriety after her children were returned to her care in February 2012. [ 12 ] Following a meeting with the mother in April 2012, measures were taken to ensure additional support and supervision: Ms. A committed the same day to living full time at the Shelter A to ensure her sobriety. She also admitted that she required another treatment program but maintained that she wanted to have the children attend with her as she had previously done.

The viability of this plan was unable to be determined at the time and it was made clear to Ms. A that the children could only remain with her on the conditions that she stayed in a supervised setting, that she remain sober, that she ensure the children attend school and the she attend a therapeutic program and would need to attend alcohol tests upon request. The delegate contacted the Shelter A and explained the situation and position of the DYP should Ms. A leave the Shelter setting. Since that date, Ms. A and the children have been residing at the Shelter.

The children have been generally getting out to school on time however Ms. A has not always ensured that they are home in time for dinner or curfew. She maintains she will continue to work on her time management. [1] [ 13 ] The mother was cautioned about the importance of maintaining her sobriety: […] despite completing several inpatient treatment programs, despite the DYP involvement for the second time and furthermore, despite the placement of her three children for a period of approximately 8 months, Ms. A has not yet demonstrated her ability to maintain a long period of sobriety. Ms.

A fully understands that at this point, should she be unable to demonstrate a capacity to engage in intensive treatment dealing with the underlying issues causing her alcoholism and maintain a long period of sobriety, her children may not be able to continue to reside with her on a long term basis. [2] [ 14 ] Although the mother appeared to make progress, further relapses occurred in June 2012. Several treatment options were explored and on July 4, 2012, the mother was accepted into the Program A with her children, which proved to be a very positive experience: Ms.

A was attending AA meetings at the center three times per week and began to open up in the groups. The children also fared well at the treatment center attending day camp and daycare and spending time as a family in the evenings. [3] [ 15 ] She completed the program on August 21, 2012 and returned to the Shelter A.

At the end of September, she appeared ready to return home with the children. [ 16 ] It is apparent that the mother has struggled tremendously to overcome her alcohol addiction and that continued support remains necessary. [ 17 ] At the last hearing, she confirmed her commitment to participate in a number of services to maintain her sobriety and meet her children's needs. [ 18 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest. [ 19 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion;

[ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother's care; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures, namely that she: • continue receiving services from her treating professionals and utilize the necessary supports to maintain her sobriety; • undergo random drug and alcohol testing upon the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE the mother's undertaking to do so; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES that the child be placed in respite foster care twice per month for a maximum of 48 hours at a time; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child has developed a very positive relationship with his former foster family [4] and RECOMMENDS that respite be provided by the same foster family, if possible; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois / AN4195 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall / AS1269 Attorney for the child Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight / AS9130 Attorney for the mother TD/vl