2017 QCCQ 20124, 2017 QCCQ 20124

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710331 2017 QCCQ 20124 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000180-176 DATE: October 25, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2016 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 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 a motion asking the Court to extend a judgment rendered by Judge Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q., on February 15, 2017, ordering the placement of the child in a foster family for a period of seven months.

She recommended that the mother and the child be placed in the same foster home and that they be integrated to the C House program. [ 2 ] The file demonstrates that the first placement of the child took place on January 19, 2017, when provisional measures were ordered by the Court placing the child in a foster family. [ 3 ] First the Court must say that almost none of the Court orders rendered by Judge Beauchemin were respected by the parents. [ 4 ] The evidence reveals that the mother and the child were placed in the same foster home in City A until April 11.

It appears that two days before, on April 9, the mother left the home for the weekend to go drinking, leaving the baby to the care of the foster mother’s daughter, who was 15 years old. [ 5 ] On April 10, the mother was medevaced as she was involved in an aggressive altercation, was severely beaten, while she was intoxicated. [ 6 ] The child was then entrusted to the paternal grandfather’s care in City B, where she stayed until June 23.

At that date, the paternal grandfather asked that the child be removed from his care given he was harassed by family members, more specifically, that the father’s brother had been violent, damaging the walls in the home. [ 7 ] The mother also admitted that the father assaulted her on May 19, in presence of the child. She was hit with a belt. There is currently a restraining order prohibiting the father to be in the presence of the mother. [ 8 ] It appears that the father was involved in numerous aggressive altercations involving either the mother or other people.

The father is currently detained and is facing charges of assault with a weapon. The mother admits not having respected the restraining order. [ 9 ] The father admits having used cocaine and also that he neither engaged in nor completed a substance abuse program. He has not engaged in or completed an anger management program either. He was registered for a workshop on conjugal violence, which he never attended.

[ 10 ] To this day, the father’s collaboration with the Youth Protection Worker has been minimal to non-existent. [ 11 ] The mother continues to consume alcohol until intoxication and admits having used cocaine. She has also been involved in aggressive altercations with peers and she is currently facing accusations of assault with a weapon. The mother never attended the C House program.

She was given the opportunity to attend C House during the summer, but decided not to go. [ 12 ] To this day, the mother has neither engaged in nor completed a substance abuse program and she has not attended parenting workshops. [ 13 ] Very recently, the mother changed her mind and now says that she will attend the C House program. [ 14 ] Since June 26, the child has been placed in a foster home in City C. X adjusted well to her new environment and recently started to attend daycare. A few days ago, the mother attended a funeral in City C. She was allowed to visit her child, which she did a first time.

When she presented herself the next day, she was visibly hungover, having drank all night long. [ 15 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to order a placement of the child for a period of one year, but to allow the mother and the child to attend the C House program. To this day, the only change is the mother now stating that she will go to C House. But, on the same breath, she says that she wants to keep her job in City B and she would like to have her family reunited, meaning her child and Mr. D.

It is far from clear that the mother is really willing to attend C House. [ 16 ] The child was born in November 2016 and placed in a foster family in January 2017. So the time limit provided by the law will be reached next January. To this day, it is not possible to extend the measures of placement further than this date given the fact that no exception to the law is foreseeable. To this day, nothing has been done either by the father or the mother. The Court cannot say that a return of the child with her family is foreseeable.

The Court is of the opinion that many opportunities were given to the parents to attend programs in order to resolve their problems, but they were not willing to participate. Social services were provided. [ 17 ] The mother is at a crossroad: either she attends C House and completes the entire program, or a long-term placement will have to be contemplated for the child.

As for the father, he has taken absolutely no action demonstrating that his child is a priority in his life so until he completes programs pertaining to addiction and to violent behaviour, he will not be allowed to have contact with X. [ 18 ] The Court made it very clear to the mother that it is her last chance. If she attends C House, she can be represented in Court next January and if everything goes well, the placement might be extended.

If she does not attend C House or she does not collaborate well with them in the program, other measures will have to take place in order to stabilize the child. [ 19 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2016, are endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family until January 19, 2018; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES that the child be integrated with the mother in the C House program; [ 24 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that all necessary steps be taken in order to accelerate the admission of the mother to this program.

If the mother fails to attend at the date established by C House, or if she fails to collaborate to the program, the child will be returned to the foster family until January 19, 2018; [ 25 ] ORDERS that all contacts between the mother and the child as well as between the father and the child (when he completes the programs) be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 26 ] SUSPENDS any access rights between the father and the child until he collaborates with the Director of Youth Protection and completes treatment programs for addiction and violent behaviour; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents be and remain sober when in the presence of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the child in the presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES any service providers to the family to share any information concerning the situation of the child with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the father and invests them to the Director of Youth Protection to be exercised in the best interest of the child; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to give consent to any medical care required by the child if the mother cannot be reached; [ 32 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate to the execution of the measures ordered if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of A who shall see that the measures are carried out.

__________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Camille Champeval DYP, A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 7, 2017