2012 QCCQ 9074, 2012 QCCQ 9074

Protection de la jeunesse — 12783 2012 QCCQ 9074 JR 1585 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-005841-095 DATE : February 21 st , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of le Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- X, born on […], 1998 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T

Section 95 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (Director) petitions the Court with a motion for review and extension of a Court decision, according to section 95(1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X, born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] The hearing of this motion is held jointly with the motions for review and extension, according to section 95 (1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act, in the matter of the children Y, born on […], 2000 and Z, born on […], 1995. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that since the Court order rendered on February 1 st , 2011 new facts have arisen and the Court order needs to

be extended. Mainly, the Director submits that the children are living with the grandparents and that the mother has only recently started to stabilize her situation. The Director recommends that the children be entrusted to the maternal grandparents for a period of six (6) months. [ 4 ] The mother and the children admit some of the facts alleged in the motion, as noted in the minutes of the Court.

They are in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 5 ] With the consent of all the parties and to be worth proof, the Director filed in proof an analysis of the child's social situation (Court report, D-2). [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that since the last Court order, the children remained with the maternal grandparents. [ 7 ] Y is the youngest child in the family. She needs assistance with academic issues since she has some delays. She wishes to see her mother as often as she can and wants to return in her care as soon as possible.

As stated in the Court Report, the situation is more difficult for her: "The two older children are more sceptical about mother's real changes in her lifestyle and have clearly expressed their wish to have some stability by remaining with their grandparents. As for X, she is the youngest and, of course, the situation is more difficult for her. It seems that she feels responsible for her mother's hope to heal". [ 8 ] X receives services from a school counsellor. He asks for academic support only since he is more reluctant to other kind of help.

He has well integrated in high school even if he shows some academic delays. He participates in sporting activities. [ 9 ] Z also receives support from a school counsellor. She demonstrates some minor difficulties in school. She has goals for herself and knows that all of her issues are not her mother's fault. [ 10 ] The mother has been struggling with her addiction to drugs since she was a teenager. On May 17 th , 2011, she entered an in-patient rehabilitation center. She remained in the program for a period of four (4) weeks on a possibility of 13 weeks.

Following the therapy, she was recommanded to enter an intensive outpatient program at the House A. She was also encouraged to undergo an evaluation of her mental health. Since this summer, the mother relapsed on at least two occasions. [ 11 ] The mother has failed to engage in the recommandations. In the course of her testimony, she explains that she is on a mental health waiting list since three months. And as for House A, she says that they never called her back.

She also testifies that she is sober since 2 months. [ 12 ] She informs the Court that she attends AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and CA (Cocaine Anonymous) five times a week. [ 13 ] The mother did not report to the Director on a regular basis.

She missed several appointments or phone calls scheduled with the Director. [ 14 ] However, for the first time, the mother accepts that the children remain in the care of their grandparents in order to focus on her own difficulties which she wants to resolve. [ 15 ] She explains that she has no problem with her parents, the relationship is better since the last year, which plays a big factor in accepting the placement. [ 16 ] The mother participates in her children's activities either it's for school meetings or sporting events. [ 17 ] As for the biological father, he was invited to meet with the Director but he did not respond to his offer.

His relationship with the mother remains unclear however, his presence is positive when the children visit their mother. [ 18 ] The situation exposed during the audition favours that the child be entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents. The involvement of the Director is needed to support the family. [ 19 ] Even if they are maintained in the extended family, it is important for the children to have their own life-plan. However, for the first time the mother is acknowledging the situation and wants to assume all her parental responsibilities.

The period of six (6) months will give time to the mother to follow on her good intentions. The Court encourages the mother to pursue a specialized treatment for her substance-abuse problem given her history and the fragility of her situation. [ 20 ] The communication between the mother and the grandparents is essential for the wellbeing of the children. As the mother testified, the situation seems to be better which is in the best interest of the children. [ 21 ] A particular attention must be given to Jamal's situation at school.

Considering the academic difficulties he encounters, all the help he can receive is the better. [ 22 ] Considering all the facts that took place in the children's life and their need for stability and proper supervision; [ 23 ] Considering that child's security and development are still in danger; FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger;

[ 26 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 1 st , 2011; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandparents; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be upon agreement between the parties; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother report on a regular basis to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she apply in her own regard or her child to put an end at the situation in witch the security or the development of the child are in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo a psychiatric assessment; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues with specialized treatment regarding her addiction to drugs; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child received certain health care and health services required by his state; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six (6) months. ________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Luce Abarrategui Attorney for the DYP Me Éric Hamel Attorney for the child Me Kathleen O'Meara Attorney for the mother