2019 QCCQ 15735, 2019 QCCQ 15735

Protection de la jeunesse — 194996 2019 QCCQ 15735 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000923-182 DATE: January 15, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [… ], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1 ], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […], district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], district A Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2015, are in danger under

section 38 (b) (2), (

c) and (e) (2) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . The DYP recommends entrusting the child to a foster family until December 31, 2019. [ 2 ] Me Tommasel asks that Mr. B be declared as an interested party in the file. Mr. B is the mother’s spouse since 2015, and X always lived with him. Considering the consent of the parties and the best interest of the child, the Court declares Mr. B as an interested party. [ 3 ] Mr. B admits some of the alleged facts, agrees that the situation of the child is in danger, but contests the measures.

He would like the child to be entrusted to him. [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Lazarov. She doesn’t contest the compromising, but she contests the measures. She also wants the child to be entrusted to the interested party, Mr. B, until she goes to resources for alcohol consumption. She wants to go to a mother and child program. [ 5 ] X who is 3 years old is absent, but represented by Me Martineau. After hearing the evidence, she thinks that the plan of Mr. B is the best option for the child. She also asks a shorter period for the measures, so the DYP could check how it is going.

Facts [ 6 ] The mother lives with her spouse, Mr. B since 2015. Mr. B has a son, Y who is now 16 years old. He is living with them since 2017. X always lived with her mother and Mr. B. [ 7 ] The couple has alcohol consumption issues, and numerous police interventions were required since 2016. Each time X was present. [ 8 ] On June 6, 2018, provisional agreement was reached pour a period of 30 days. During that period the situation improved as no incidents were reported. Mr. B confirmed that they reduced their alcohol consumption and doing so, relationship get better.

But despite their engagement, they did not seek help through the Social Services. [ 9 ] The situation continued to improve until the middle of August, when the police had to intervene again around every two weeks for conjugal violence events and alcohol consumption from the mother and once from Mr. B. [ 10 ] On October 29, the family was met. The mother admitted her alcohol consumption issues, but did not offer anything to address

her addiction. They refused to have X babysat while they drink, as they trust nobody. [ 11 ] X is a healthy 3-year-old girl who listen very well the rules. Her development seems to be very good to her age. She appears affected by her mother’s consumption and seems to realize that the presence of the DYP worker is protective for her. [ 12 ] The DYP worker mentions in her testimony that she does not recommend a placement of X under Mr. B’s care. According to her, even if the bonds are very strong between the child and her step-father, he has alcohol consumption issues.

X is very young and doing so, very vulnerable. [ 13 ] The DYP worker is also surprised that, at the hearing, the mother offers to entrust Therapy Center A and that the step-father offer to take care of X during this treatment. By the past, they never suggested any measures to protect the child. [ 14 ] Regarding the foster family available, as no extended family can foster X, the DYP found a foster family in Town A and also, a place at the daycare. The DYP agree to organize very frequent access and to travel X from Town A to Town B.

For now, the DYP worker can’t guarantee a minimal frequency because this aspect will have to be deeply evaluated according to the capacity of X to adapt to her new environment. [ 15 ] She recognizes that this placement can destabilize X. But considering she lived so much instability and she witnessed so much violence, the DYP considers that the foster family is in her best interest. If the mother proposes other places where X could be fostered, the DYP worker will evaluate those places. [ 16 ] The DYP worker heard at the hearing about Mr. B’s plan to live at the teacher’s apartment.

She knows that the interaction is very positive between X, Mr. B and his son Y. But, even if she knows this teacher and she considers her as a very reliable person, she previously has to evaluate this option before giving her consent. She admits that this option would be the easiest option, but she has some concerns. She would be more secure if it would be at the exclusion of the mother. [ 17 ] She also said that as any other files, if the Court entrusts the child under Mr. B’s care, the DYP will make some unannounced visits because it’s always included in the intervention plans.

That being said, she does not know when those visits could start as it’s necessary to assign someone to this function. [ 18 ] The mother testifies and explains that she met the DYP worker only twice: once to see if everything is going well and the second one, to inform her about the date of hearing and the measures which would be recommended to the Court. [ 19 ] The mother wants to receive help and does not want her daughter entrusted to a foster family. She is conscious that the reason for the DYP intervention is her alcohol consumption.

She wants to address her issues and to keep her daughter or to be able to have her back after her therapy. According to her, too many children are placed under the YPA and she does not want that happened to her daughter. [ 20 ] She asks that her daughter stay with Mr. B and as soon as she can have her at center A with her, she would like to be allowed to do so. If it’s not possible, she would like her daughter entrusted to Mr. B during all her therapy. [ 21 ] The mother heard about the mother and child program offered by center A with her lawyer.

She was not aware about this kind of therapy before. [ 22 ] During the evening before the hearing the parents were invited for supper by someone in Town A. They drank some beers, but they were not intoxicated. Someone at the transit called the police because they make noise when they came back for the night. No occurrence report was made. [ 23 ] Mr. B testifies that X calls him “Daddy”. She speaks three languages ([language A], English and French). She is very attached to him and to Y. [ 24 ] He explains being in Town A for three days before the court hearing.

During this time, he made some steps to find an apartment available at his return, and one of the teachers offered him to stay at her place as she does not occupy it. [ 25 ] M. B recognizes his alcohol consumption, but according to him, his addiction is less important than Ms. A’s addiction and he is more able to control it. He agrees to work with the Social Services and also with the DYP worker. He has support from his colleagues and considers being well surrounded. Analysis [ 26 ] The parties admit that the situation of the child is in danger. The evidence provided confirms this situation of danger.

The Court will now focus on the measures. [ 27 ] The family difficulties are known since 2016, and X always lived in this environment. Intervention was only made in June 2018, and provisional measures were signed for 30 days. Everyone agrees that the situation gets better during that time, but nothing was done to prolong the services offered. [ 28 ] Even if it’s recent, the mother recognizes her issues and suggest a solution.

For sure this change of mind is recent, but if the pressing of the Court was able to do so, very good for her as it’s the result the DYP was looking for. [ 29 ] The mother’s addiction is very important, and the impact on her daughter is also very important. This therapy will be beneficial for her, and she will have to proof that it’s not empty words. [ 30 ] The family suggests a solution to insure the safety of the child in the meanwhile. Mr. B found a place to stay with her son and offer to take care of X. The mother asks the Court to grant this request.

[ 31 ] The Youth Protection Act required that when parents are not able to adequately take care of their children, measures should be applied to insure their maintain with extended family members, in an environment as close as they know before and the whole with the collaboration of the parents. [ 32 ] The solution suggested by the mother respond to those aspects. It has the advantage to maintain X with at least one of her care givers. The Court understand the concern of the DYP. For sure, this solution is very recent, it was not evaluated by the DYP and Mr. B still has an alcohol consumption issues.

But on the other side, the evidence does not show that Mr. B consume outside the presence of the mother, the family situation was not new for the DYP and knowing this situation, no measures were offered. The evidence does not show why today it’s more urgent to entrust X to a foster family than in 2016, or in 2017. [ 33 ] The most important in the situation is to maintain X in her environment, to offer services to the parents in a way to put an end to the situation in which the child is in danger.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS this application; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on October 29, 2015, are in danger under

section 38 (b) (2), (

c) and (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act .; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr. B under the strict following conditions: • at the exclusion of the mother; • that the child is not in presence of people who consume alcohol or under the influence; • that X goes to the daycare 5 days a week; • that Mr. B meet with the Social Services or Mr. [social worker 2] (DYP worker) once a week; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

B report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they applied in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

B remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the mother remain without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 41 ] ENCOURAGES the mother to seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES the child to be with the mother, if the mother is receiving services from a mother and child program, for as long as the mother is there; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until August 9, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: January 15, 2019