2017 QCCQ 20123, 2017 QCCQ 20123

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710375 2017 QCCQ 20123 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: February 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2006 614-41-000172-165 Y, born on [...], 2011 614-41-000171-167 CHILDREN ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits motions to declare that the security and development of X, ten years old, and Y, five years old, are endangered pursuant to subparagraphs b)1°iii) and b)2° of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis represents the children. The oldest, X, is present. Both parents are absent, but Mtre. Michel Grenier acts on behalf of the mother and Mtre. Myriam Gaudrault represents the father. Both parents gave a clear mandate to their counsel and decided not to come to court. [ 3 ] The Youth Protection Worker testified that the day before the hearing, the police were called twice regarding disturbances at the parents’ residence. The first time at 5 a.m. and the second time, at 7 a.m.

The police officers decided to charge the mother with disturbance after the second call. The mother was present, under the influence of alcohol, but the police officer did not see the father when they intervened. [ 4 ] Most of the allegations of the motions are admitted.

It appears that the children were subject of numerous interventions by the Director of Youth Protection over the past years through the signatures of agreements on voluntary measures, provisional agreements, or judgments rendered by the Québec Court, youth division, the last being on June 12, 2015. [ 5 ] The parents have longstanding alcohol and drug issues which have not been addressed or resolved yet. For instance, on October 7, 2016, the parents were drinking in the children’s presence, which led the Director of Youth Protection to place, temporarily, the children in a foster home.

Three days after, X presented herself at the youth protection office, seeking help as her parents were drinking. [ 6 ] On November 3 rd , as the parents were drinking, X had to take care of Y, prepare her for school and put her on the school bus. [ 7 ] On November 18, the child X brought her young sister to the youth protection office seeking some help as the parents had been drinking all day. So, X had to take care of Y throughout the day. The children were not properly fed and supervised.

On the same day, a representative of the Director of Youth Protection went to the parents’ place: both were intoxicated and a strong odour of cannabis was noticed. [ 8 ] It also appears that X must take too heavy a responsibility for her young age and has to act as a parent toward her young sister.

When the parents aren’t under the influence of alcohol, it seems that they are adequate. [ 9 ] When Y arrived at the foster home, her hair was infested with lice and treatment had to be done in order for her to be able to attend kindergarten and daycare. [ 10 ] The parents have to resolve their substance abuse issues on a permanent basis. If not, a longer placement of the children will have to be seriously considered. [ 11 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X, born on […], 2006, and Y, born on […], 2001, are endangered pursuant to subparagraphs b)1°iii) and b)2° of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 13 ] ORDERS the placement of both children in a foster home for a period on nine months with a possible reintegration to the care of either parent after six months if the situation allows it, meaning if the parents went through a substance abuse program successfully and have been able to be and remain sober for at least three months; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contact between the children and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and RECOMMENDS that these contacts be encouraged; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents complete a substance abuse treatment program as soon as possible, that they follow all the recommendations made by the professional and ORDERS them to undertake an aftercare program with a professional; [ 16 ] ORDERS the parents to be and remain sober when in presence of the children; [ 17 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the children are not in presence of people under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they are under their care; [ 18 ] ORDERS the parents to seek help from a professional, namely to fully collaborate with a psychological follow-up and ORDERS the parents to follow any recommendations made by the professional; [ 19 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family for the purpose of attendance and progress; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents for a period of twelve months; [ 21 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: January 4, 2017