2019 QCCQ 17804, 2019 QCCQ 17804

Protection de la jeunesse — 196175 2019 QCCQ 17804 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000071-169 614-41-000072-167 614-41-000199-176 614-41-000262-172 DATE: May 22, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant X, born on […], 2013 Y, born on […], 2014 Z, born on […], 2016 A, born on […], 2017 Children and B, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and C, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 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 A (the Director) submits to the Court four applications for the review of the judgment rendered on April 19, 2018, by Honourable judge Lucille Beauchemin. He asks for a placement until majority for A and a six-month placement in foster families for the three other children. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present, represented by Me Michel Grenier. Me Antoine Meunier represents the children and Me Magdalena Lempicka, the petitioner.

The mother is absent even if served. [ 3 ] Evidence is constituted of the revision reports, the criminal record of the mother and the testimonies of the foster father, the social worker and the father. In support of his testimony, the father filed a report from D from the [Organism A] and two letters from counsellors. The father disagrees with the measures and wants his children back with him. [ 4 ] In the situation of A, the evidence reveals that the child was placed in the foster family of Mr. E when she was three months old.

Since, they assume her and answer all her needs. [ 5 ] The parents had serious alcohol and drug issues and were unable to provide for the child. Her siblings were all under the Youth Protection Act and placed in foster families. After her security and development were declared in danger, A was placed for four months in foster family and after for a year. The parents were well informed of what they must change in their situation.

They are well aware of the consequences for the future of their child and her life project if they would not collaborate. [ 6 ] In the last judgment rendered, the court having evidence of the lack of progress in the parent’s situation, asked the Director to elaborate a long-term permanent plan for the child. [ 7 ] Now, the foster parents are willing to assume the child until her majority and they are attached to her. The child also considers them as her parents and she does very well in her foster family.

She did not have any contact with her parents over the last year. [ 8 ] The mother’s situation is still unstable. She does not collaborate with the social worker. [ 9 ] The father’s situation improves, but he cannot offer this young child the stability and cares she needs. He does not know her

and both parents are absent in her life. [ 10 ] Considering the evidence and

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), the Court orders the placement of A in the foster family of Mr. and Mrs. E her majority. [ 11 ] For the three other children, their situation is quite similar. [ 12 ] The parents are not in relationship since November 2018. Last June 2018, they were supposed to visit A but they ended up in City A and in City B where they drink. In November, the father came back in the community. The mother stayed in City B for a while and went to City C after. Her whereabouts are unknown.

She did not contact the social worker nor visit her children during nine months. [ 13 ] Since the return of the father, he is more collaborative. He lives with his parents and made steps to deal with his own issues. He attends the [Organism A] since the end of November. He is sober since the end of November. [ 14 ] He visits his children even if he does not have a place to receive them. He shows good parental capacities, but he never had to assume them alone for more than few hours up to now.

He has to create bounds with his children and now they are source of motivation for him. [ 15 ] The children are well taken care in their foster families and it appears the youngest was reluctant with his father at first. They met him in January and irregularly since. [ 16 ] X lives with his maternal grandmother and she is committed to him. She is considering a long-term basis placement. She is well aware that the child suffered because he was changed frequently of foster family before. Now he feels safe and stable with her. [ 17 ] Y and Z are placed together since 2017.

Before Y has been moved few times from foster families. Even though both are close and attached to the foster parents. They both attend school and daycare. [ 18 ] Life plan projects are not prepared yet for those children. The Director needs to evaluate the commitment of the foster parents and the attachment.

He also has to evaluate the father’s involvement to his children and his whole situation. [ 19 ] Consequently, as the father acknowledges he is not in position to assume his children and does not know all their needs and their development; FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y, Z and A are still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of A in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs.

E until her majority; [ 23 ] ORDERS the placement of X, Y and Z in foster families for six months; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director to supervise the contacts of the children with the parents as for location, frequency and presence of a third party; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for six months; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continue his therapy and counselling; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in City B on July 8, 2019 __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Antoine Meunier Attorney for the children Me Magdalena Lempicka Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the father

Date of hearing: May 22, 2019