2015 QCCQ 9794, 2015 QCCQ 9794

Protection de la jeunesse — 15973 2015 QCCQ 9794 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] No: 525-41-027779-131 525-41-027780-139 DATE : January 12 th , 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTERS Director and X born […], 2013 Y born […], 2013 children And A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centers (" the Director" ), to revise an order rendered by the undersigned on February 13, 2014 entrusting the children to the maternal grandmother, Ms.

B for a period of nine (9) months, along with other measures including a social follow-up for a period of eighteen (18) months. [ 2 ] The Director is essentially alleging that the children are doing well with their grandmother and that the mother’s situation has progressed but not sufficiently for her to care for the children on her own. [ 3 ] Based on the above, the Director is recommending that the children be entrusted to their mother on condition that she reside with the grand-mother along with other supportive measures including random drug testing, the whole for one year. [ 4 ] The mother is present and agrees with the motion, the filing of the reports and the recommendations.

Her only reservation is in regards to undergoing random drug testing. The mother states having stopped consuming drugs for the last year and having undergone two “negative” tests. Thus, she sees no need to undergo further testing. [ 5 ] The Director is recommending this particular measure as a safeguard, to ensure that the mother, who will be living with the children if the motion is granted, is in a state to do so.

Although the mother has generally been transparent, it is not clear that she would inform the Director in the event she started consuming again. [ 6 ] The children’s lawyer agrees with the general orientation and has no particular position on the issue of drug testing. [ 7 ] In essence, the facts establish that both children have thrived in the care of their maternal grandmother and aunt, the latter having even momentarily interrupted her education to care for her nephew and niece.

[ 8 ] X received various services (occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech therapy, neurological follow-up) and has made substantial gains in all areas. Her follow-up should be more normalized from here on in. [ 9 ] The mother has greatly stabilized her life and participated in various activities: individual follow-up, parenting classes and educator services. As mentioned earlier, she appears to have stopped using drugs. She sees her children frequently, almost daily, at her mother’s. The visits are always supervised.

The visits were to begin taking place at her home, in the presence and with the assistance of her educator, provided that she baby-proof her apartment, something the mother agreed to in early May 2014. Six months later, it still had not been done. Thus, educator services were terminated. Under the circumstances, a reintegration could not take place and is clearly not feasible at present. [ 10 ] Further, the mother remains somewhat vulnerable to the influence of her former boyfriend, Mr. C, the man who injured X. Mr.

C has been incarcerated, but surprisingly, the parties are unclear as to the reasons of his incarceration. It would appear that it is not in relation to the assault on X and it is not clear what has or will transpire in relation to this assault. In any event, Mr. C has sent messages to the mother to the effect that their relationship was not over. The mother has expressed that she still has feelings for Mr. C. He was due to be released in six months or so. [ 11 ] The grandmother and aunt moved with the children into a bigger apartment.

The plan put forward by the parties is for the mother to move in with them in two weeks. [ 12 ] Considering that the children are doing well with the grandmother, that the mother has not demonstrated that she can care for the children alone and that the grandmother accepts that the mother reside with her, the Court believes that the recommendations made by the Director are in the children’s best interest. [ 13 ] Furthermore, given that the mother will now have daily access to the children, the Director will be authorized to ask the mother to undergo random drug testing should the Director feel such a request is in the children’s best interest. [ 14 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 15 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision ; and [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the children is still compromised; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the maternal grandmother, Ms.

B, until February 1 st , 2015 and then that the children be entrusted to the mother at the condition that she reside with the maternal grandmother; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that all the children’s medical needs are met; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother submit to random drug tests; [ 20 ] PROHIBITS any contacts between the children and Mr. C; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the Director verify the pending charges concerning Mr.

C; [ 22 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of one year; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director Me Maïa Sureau Attorney for the children Me Lilian Stah Attorney for the Mother

Hearing date: CL/nl January 12 th , 2015