2016 QCCQ 15426, 2016 QCCQ 15426

Protection de la jeunesse — 167527 2016 QCCQ 15426 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No : 640-41-001943-155 DATE: November 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2014 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in A City, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in A City, Quebec, District A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. 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 of the A C.Y.P.C. asks the Court to review the decision rendered on June 15, 2016 by Judge Jean Gravel, J.C.Q., concerning the child X, born on [...], 2014. [ 2 ] There is a common hearing for Y and X.

The Director of Youth Protection asks for their placement in foster families for one year. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother is assisted by Me Angèle Tommasel. Me Cassandra Neptune represents the children and Me Aubrée Coutanson assists the applicant. [ 4 ] The mother admits many allegations and agrees with the recommendations. She acknowledges that the security and development of Y are in danger. [ 5 ] Since the last judgment, X remained with his mother on conditions that the mother always be sober and non-violent in presence of the child.

Last January, the mother gave birth to Y and voluntary measures were signed at the beginning of March 2016. [ 6 ] On August 27, 2016, the mother was found highly intoxicated in presence of the children. The same day, Y was found in the garbage, severely wounded, with scratches and bruises on his face and his arms and legs, barely dressed.

He was brought to the hospital and hospitalised due to a fever and a pneumonia until September 8, 2016. [ 7 ] As the mother and the grandmother live in the same house, both are accusing the other for the scratches and bruises on Y. [ 8 ] The mother admitted, when met by the social worker, that she does not remember what happened on August 27, 2016 and added that she do not want to take care of Y anymore. [ 9 ] Since, provisional measures are taken, and Y and X are placed in foster families. [ 10 ] The maternal grandmother did not want to collaborate with the youth protection worker.

She refused access to her house to the social worker. The grandmother also consumes alcohol and drugs regularly. [ 11 ] Considering the evidence, the Court declare the security and development of Y in danger and the one of X are still in danger. [ 12 ] The evidence on the applicable measures reveals that the mother has good parental capacities when she is sober, but she has

serious problems with alcohol. She did not seek for services to quit drinking yet. The help on supervision provided by the grandmother is inadequate. Her own consumption of drugs and alcohol affects her capacities. [ 13 ] Consequently, there is no reliable person to ensure the security of the children. [ 14 ] A maternal bond exists for X but is not developed for Y. The mother thinks of adoption for him. She is still ambivalent. She must clarify her position towards Y.

For X, she clearly wants to have him back as soon as she solves her problems. [ 15 ] Considering the collaboration and motivation of the mother and her parental capacities when she is sober, the Director of Youth Protection recommends the children’s placement in foster families for a year but with reintegration of X with his mother as soon as the mother’s situation improves significantly. For Y, intensive counselling should help the mother to decide for the best interest of her son.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion in revision for X; [ 17 ] DECLARES the security and development of Y in danger; [ 18 ] DECLARES the security and development of X still in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS the placement of X and Y in foster families until October 31, 2017; [ 20 ] ORDERS the progressive reintegration of X with his mother as soon as her situation allows it; [ 21 ] ORDERS the mother to remain sober and non-violent in presence of the children; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to seek help through the social services for her substance addiction; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise and to favor the contacts and visits of the children with the mother (frequency, duration and presence of a third person if necessary); [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the mother and the children for a period of one year; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits in the family household during visits of the children and during the reintegration of X; [ 27 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Me Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the children Date of hearing: October 12, 2016