2013 QCCQ 20364, 2013 QCCQ 20364

Protection de la jeunesse — 132243 2013 QCCQ 20364 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-024166-118 N°: 525-41-024167-116 N°: 525-41-024168-114 N°: 525-41-024169-112 DATE: June 11, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2003 - and - Y Born on […], 2004 - and - Z Born on […], 2008 - and - A Born on […], 2010 - and - B - and - C Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court was presented with four motions for extension of orders rendered February 7, 2012.

In the cases of X and Y entrusting them to the care of their paternal aunt, D, for one year and in the cases of Z and A entrusting them to foster care and following a positive assessment entrusting them to the care of their maternal aunt and her husband, E, for one year. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for one year. [ 2 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The parents have not been collaborative with the youth protection process, more particularly but not restrictively in that: .

The parents failed to sustain communications with the youth protection worker; . the parents do not have a reliable phone number to be reached at; . the parents do not return the youth protection worker’s phone calls;

• The parents have failed to address their issues, more particularly: . the parents were encouraged to seek services to address their issues pertaining to conjugal violence but did not do so; . the mother interrupted life skills adult education classes after two sessions; . the parents sought services from a healing lodge but were referred to services appropriate with their issues, which they failed to seek; . the parents tested negative on a random drug and alcohol test in August 2012.

In the cases of X and Y: • The children are doing very well in the care of the paternal aunt where remarkable progress is achieved; • The parents have had occasional supervised visits with the children when visiting the proximity of the entrustment home; • The children has had two contacts with their twin siblings; • The parents have had a transient lifestyle moving back and forth between Montreal and their northern community.

In the cases of Z and A: • In March 2012, the children were moved from a foster home to the care of their maternal aunt and her husband; • The children are doing very well in the care of their maternal aunt and her husband and remarkable progress is being achieved; • The parents have had occasional supervised visits with the children when visiting the proximity of the entrustment home; • The child Z’s speech was assessed by a professional where he was found to suffer no regression while his dental situation is being dealt with. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends in the cases of X and Y that they be entrusted to the care of their paternal aunt, D, until their respective age of majority and that a social follow-up be maintained for the same period.

In the cases of Z and A, that they be entrusted to the care of their maternal aunt, F and her husband, E, for one year and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 4 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motions. In the cases of X and Y, the parents agree for them to be maintained in the care of D, but for one year and with reintegration to their care as soon as the situation allows.

In the cases of Z and A, the parents agree for them to be entrusted to the care of F and her husband E for a period of one year, but with reintegration to their care as soon as the situation allows. [ 5 ] The mother testifies that she went back to […] in January 2013 and was living at the home of D, the father’s sister, until she started working for a mining company near […] in March 2013 as a kitchen help. She works for 21 days and then gets 7 days off, at which time she returns at the home of D.

Of course, when she resides at the home of D, she sees her two older daughters, X and Y, daily. [ 6 ] The mother says that she has gotten very attached to her daughters while living at the home of D. She states that she does not want to loose her children. Furthermore, X and Y have been asking her when they will be reunited as a family and saying that they miss their brothers. The mother says that she no longer uses drugs or alcohol. She followed a 28 days drug rehabilitation program with A in March 2012 but did not complete the follow-up program.

She says she had one relapse with drugs around June 2012 and that she has not taken any alcohol since October 2012. [ 7 ] The father states that he went back to […] in December 2012 and has been working for a mining company since January 2013. He also lives at the home of his sister, D, when he is not working. The father states that they will rent a house in August from a young man who will leave to study in […]. This house is situated between the mine and the home of D. [ 8 ] Counsel for the children considers that the parents are not in a position to regain custody of their children at this time.

In the cases of X and Y, Me Laforce informs the Court that she has spoken to the girls and they were not aware of the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection. The children are doing well in the care of D, but wish to be reunited with their parents. Me Laforce considers that it is in the girls’ best interest to be entrusted to the care of D for one year in order to prepare them for the permanent plan recommended by DYP.

In the cases of Z and A, Me Laforce considers that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in the children’s best interest. [ 9 ] The Court also heard the testimony of G and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that the mother is pregnant and will give birth to another child in October 2013.

The parents have not been collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection or addressing their difficulties. [ 10 ] Although the parents have made some progress since the last Court order, they have not stabilised their lifestyle and there are contradictions in their testimonies as to the father’s drinking. Furthermore, they do not have a stable home and are still struggling financially. [ 11 ] In the cases of X and Y, it is in the children’s best interest to be maintained in the care of their paternal aunt, D for a period of one year.

The children have lived in the home of D with their parents for extended periods of time. They were not informed of DYP’s recommendation that they be entrusted to their aunt’s care until their respective age of majority. They expected to be reunited in their parents’ in the near future. Therefore, the next year will determine whether the parents can change their lifestyle or if the girls must remain entrusted to their aunt’s care until their respective age of majority.

[ 12 ] In the cases of Z and A, it is in their best interest to be entrusted to their maternal aunt, F, and her husband, E, for a period of one year. The boys are doing well in the care of their aunt and uncle.

However, the aunt is experiencing health problems and therefore a permanent plan for the boys will need to be elaborated over the next year. [ 13 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 14 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X, Y, Z and A; [ 17 ] ORDERS that X and Y remain entrusted to the care of their paternal aunt, Ms.

D, for a period of one year; [ 18 ] ORDERS that Z and A remain entrusted to the care of their maternal aunt, Ms. F, and her husband, Mr.

E, for a period of one year; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a request be made in order for a youth worker to be assigned to work with the parents; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with DYP and inform the youth workers of the steps they have taken to address their respective situations and of any change of address or telephone number; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to refrain from consuming alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol and drugs when in the presence of the children; [ 23 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to obtain and share information with the professionals working with the family; [ 24 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents certain attributes of parental authority; • In the cases of X and Y: AUTHORIZES Ms.

D to sign all consents for the children related to health, school, activities and travel; • In the cases of Z and A: AUTHORIZES Ms. F and Mr. E to sign all consents for the children related to health, school, activities and travel; [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for the period of one year; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X, Y, Z and A, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. Signed June 11, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.

AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pauline Laforce Counsel for the children Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Marc Morin Counsel for the father

Date of hearing: May 29, 2013