2022 QCCQ 12075, 2022 QCCQ 12075

Protection de la jeunesse — 227109 2022 QCCQ 12075 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002524-202 DATE: October 19, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION ( sections 95(1) (2) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR., c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection applied under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] for the extension of a decision rendered on May 13, 2021, by the Honourable Dominique Wilhelmy, J.C.Q. At that time, she declared that the security and development of the child were still in danger . She entrusted the child to a family foster until May 31, 2022. [ 2 ] The Youth Director alleged that the child is still in danger under

section 38(b)(1)(iii) the Youth Protection Act . [2] [ 3 ] The following facts were introduced into evidence. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the mother was present and assisted by counsel. She admitted most of the facts and agreed with the measures. The father was present and did not want to be assisted by counsel. He agreed with the measures but said that he wanted his children back very soon. [ 5 ] The following facts were introduced in evidence. [ 6 ] The Director alleged that, since the last hearing, the mother’s situation remains mostly the same.

She continues to display alcohol consumption issues and conjugal violence issues with her spouse B, who is the father of X's siblings. The Director added that the mother displays mental health issues in relation to her alcohol consumption. [ 7 ] The mother admits that she still has alcohol consumption issues but explained that she and her spouse do not have conjugal violence issues anymore. She denied having mental health issues. [ 8 ] Since the last Court hearing, the mother and her spouse were unable to pursue regular follow-up with Social Services and did not present themselves to their appointments.

On July 2, 2021, the mother's spouse had an ATV accident which resulted in his being in a coma until late August 2021. He returned to the community around the end of September 2021. Following this accident, they took steps to improve their situation. They were able to show progress but were unable to maintain it for an extended period of time. [ 9 ] During March 2022, the mother was unable to respect the visit calendar and on more than one occasion, she did not present herself for the visits or was too intoxicated to take care of the children.

Since April 2022, she has been able to have positive and consistent visits with the child.

[ 10 ] The Director alleged that the mother and her spouse have a pattern of improving their situation and then relapsing in their alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. For the moment, the mother is unable to provide the child with a safe and stable environment. The applicant specified at the hearing that she wished that the mother could mobilize herself and then she could have her child back. But for now, she is unable to tell people not come to her house and bring free alcohol.

If the mother and her spouse could maintain their progress, the mother could have back her child. [ 11 ] After considering the documentary evidence, the testimony and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to declare that the security and development of the child are still in danger and that the measures suggested meet her needs and are deemed to be in her best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 13 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on May 13, 2021; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger under

section 38(b)(1)(iii) of the Youth Protection Act ; [3] [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until June 30, 2023; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated with her mother if the situation allows it; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the director to inform him of the current situation; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and her mother be determined by the director as to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 21 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this judgment; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] The whole for eight (8) months, until June 30, 2023. __________________________________ NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q.

Mtre Adèle Cyr Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the D.Y.P. Mtre Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Counsel for the child Mtre Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 19, 2022