2015 QCCQ 10057, 2015 QCCQ 10057

Protection de la jeunesse — 15975 2015 QCCQ 10057 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-028939-148 525-41-029064-144 DATE: January 14, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X born on […], 2006 Y born on […], 2011 The Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B , X’s father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 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 with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the children be declared to be in danger for the following reasons: For X : 3.1. On September 23, 2014, the child’s situation was signalled to the Director of Youth Protection; 3.2. more specifically, the parents’ home contained approximately three hundred (300) plants of marijuana and electrical wire equipment that presented a serious danger to the child; 3.3. mold was also present and considered as a safety hazard for the child;

3.4. on October 2, 2014, the mother was arrested by the police and detained until October 7, 2014; 3.5. the mother is currently charged with drug-related offences and is under criminal court conditions; 3.6. it was impossible for the youth protection worker to meet with the father as he has fled from the home and his whereabouts are currently unknown; 3.7. on October 6, 2014, the child’s entrustment to a confidential foster home was extended under

Section 47 of the Youth Protection Act; 3.8. neither parent is in a position to care for the child at the present time; 3.9. the mother presents as non-collaborative and evasive about the family’s situation; 3.10. as relevant information, the child’s sibling has been located in A City, A province at the house of an extended family member and his situation is currently being assessed by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) of that area; For Y : 3.1. as background information, the child’s sibling is the subject of a court order rendered on October 10, 2014 under

section 79 of the Youth Protection Act in the file bearing #525-41-001307-142, where he was entrusted to a confidential foster home with reintegration to the mother’s care once a resource she could live with was positively assessed by the Director of Youth Protection, along with other measures including a social follow-up. Such measures are in effect until November 4, 2014, date at which a hearing under

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act is to be held; 3.2. on September 24, 2014, the child’s situation was reported to the Director of Youth Protection for allegations pertaining to a risk of neglect of the child’s needs with respect to supervision or support.

Said report was to the effect that marijuana plants were being grown in the mother’s home, and as a result, molding and electrical wires were posing a danger for the child; 3.3. on October 2, 2014, the youth protection worker went to the home with the assistance of the police and discovered marijuana being grown inside the home; 3.4. the home contained approximately three hundred (300) plants of marijuana and electrical wire equipment that presented a serious danger for the child; 3.5. mold was also present and considered as a safety hazard for the child’s sibling who was found in the home; 3.6. the mother was arrested by the police and detained until October 7, 2014; 3.7. the mother is charged with drug-related offences and is the subject of criminal court conditions; 3.8. on October 6, 2014, a warrant was issued by the Court in order to locate the child, as he was not in the home at the time of the visit by the youth protection worker and police; 3.9. on October 24, 2014, the youth protection worker met with the child’s sibling’s father, Mr.

B; 3.10. Mr. B indicated he had been living transiently with friend in B City and A province while refusing to answer the extent of his visits to the family home in B City; 3.11. the mother has been collaborative with the Director of Youth Protection, disclosed having been living with Mr. B but is evasive about the extent of her involvement with respect to drug-related activities; 3.12. the child has been living with his maternal grandmother, Ms.

C in A province for approximately one (1) month; 3.13. in the meantime, the Children’s Aid Society in A province has been collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection and is proceeding with an entrustment assessment of the child’s maternal grandmother; 3.14. the child’s maternal grandmother intends on caring for the child until he is returned to the mother’s care, as long as the latter resides with her friend Ms. D.

In this matter, the maternal grandmother intends on returning the child to the mother on November 8, 2014, with the collaboration of the Director of Youth Protection and Children’s Aid Society in A province; 3.15. the mother lives at a friend’s home, Ms.

D and is ready to have the child returned to her, more particularly on November 8, 2014; [ 2 ] Today, the Director is recommending that for the following year, the children be entrusted to their mother with various support measures and that X’s father’s contacts with both children be determined by the Director. [ 3 ] The mother is present and through her lawyer, admits the allegations of the motion except in terms of the children being exposed to danger (mold, wiring…).

She also agrees with the Director’s recommendations. [ 4 ] The father is absent but is represented by a lawyer who, in his name, makes certain admissions. Of note, the father claims to ignore that there were hundreds of marijuana plants in the basement, yet he denies the presence of mold. He is not present to explain this apparent contradiction. [ 5 ] From the admissions and reports filed into evidence, the Court retains the following facts.

[ 6 ] The family consists of the mother, her two children, Y (a 3 year old boy) and X (an 8 year old girl) and the latter’s father. Y’s father is undeclared. [ 7 ] On October 2, 2014, the police found hundreds of marijuana plants in the family home’s basement. This is a room which is easily accessible from the main floor of the family residence.

The odour emitted by the plants is quite strong, particularly when the curtain to the plant-room is open. [ 8 ] On that day, the mother was arrested and the father was sought by the police while he had Y in his care. [ 9 ] Both children ended-up being placed, X in a foster home and Y was brought to the maternal grandmother’s home in A province by a family friend. [ 10 ] The father remains “at large” but has met with the Director and given his version of events, as did the mother. Both parents deny knowledge of a marijuana-growing operation occurring in their basement.

The father states that he never went downstairs and that he did not even live in the home, contrary to what the mother and X clearly told the worker. The mother claims she did not go downstairs and did not know and never questioned what the father did down there. [ 11 ] In any event, both parents face charges in relation to the mystery marijuana. [ 12 ] On October10, 2014, this Court rendered an interim court order allowing the children to return to their mother’s care on condition that she live with a DYP-approved adult. Mrs.

D was approved for this purpose such that the children were returned to their mother’s care, X on October 24 and Y on November 8, 2014. [ 13 ] The Director’s investigation into the signalement did not reveal any other youth-protection concerns. The mother is seen as a very competent and caring parent. [ 14 ] The mother is currently under criminal court conditions including one that she not have contact with anyone who has a pending case, which includes the father.

Thus, the Director will need to organize the father’s contacts for this purpose and also because his living situation remains somewhat of a mystery. [ 15 ] Given the above, the Director’s involvement over the next year will be needed to ensure that the children are not exposed to the inherent dangers of having a drug plantation in the home and that they do not return to that home. The Director will also need to further understand the father’s situation and organize contact with the two children.

Further, should the parents be incarcerated, the Director can help ensure that the children are properly cared for, possibly with the maternal grandmother. CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X and Y is in danger; [ 18 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 19 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the mother on the condition that the mother does not return to her prior apartment; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to criminal activity; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children not enter the home that contained the marijuana plants; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and Mr.

B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents, more particularly the mother, continue to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

M e Nadia Sabik Attorney for the applicant

M e Michel Leclerc Attorney for the children Me Judith Shapiro-Knight Attorney for the mother Me Agnes Unterberg Attorney for the father Judgment rendered verbally on January 14, 2015 CL/nl