2020 QCCQ 9467, 2020 QCCQ 9467

Protection de la jeunesse — 201869 2020 QCCQ 9467 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 614-41-000466-195; 614-41-000467-193; 614-41-000468-191; 614-41-000469-199; DATE: February 12, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2011 Y, born on [...], 2016 Z, born on [...], 2017 A, born on [...], 2019 CHILDREN and B MOTHER and C 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 applications asking the Court to extend a previous judgment rendered by Judge Denyse Leduc on September 10, 2019, ordering the placement of the children for a period of six months. [ 2 ] At the hearing, only X is present. All the children are represented by Mtre. Yan Massé. Mtre. Michel Grenier acts on behalf of both parents and Mtre.

Adelia Ferreira is acting for the Director of Youth Protection. [ 3 ] The parents admit almost all of the allegations of the applications and are in agreement with the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] The children are doing well in their foster family. [ 5 ] The parents are basically at the same stage as they were last September. Not much was done in order to address their issues. [ 6 ] They are still at a contemplating stage.

Through their lawyer, they state that they are willing to meet with the NNADAP Worker. [ 7 ] This was also said before Judge Leduc last September as she wrote in her judgment: “[7] As applicable measures, the applicant recommends the children’s placement for six months. He also recommends in his report and his testimony that the parents meet with the NNADAP worker regularly and follow his recommendations.

The parents are reluctant to attend treatment and they believe that follow-up with the NNADAP worker, the CLSC worker and community worker are sufficient.” [ 8 ] Having said that last September, the Court is surprised that no steps were taken with the NNADAP Worker six months later. [ 9 ] The parents must realize the seriousness of the situation. For three of the children, at the expiration of the placement that is going to be ordered by the Court, the timeline established by the Youth Protection Act will be met.

That is to say that if nothing is done, the Director of Youth Protection will submit a life plan for the three youngest children at the expiration of the Court decision. [ 10 ] This is why it is so important that the parents do not waste time.

[ 11 ] As for the mother, she should also seek help for her personal issues. This help could be provided by a professional or, if the mother prefers, from an elder. What is important is that she opens up and begins a healing process in relation with her childhood traumas. [ 12 ] The parents were always honest and transparent with the Social Worker, and this has to be commended. [ 13 ] The children’s lawyer is of the opinion that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in the best interest of his young clients.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT; [ 14 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2011, Y, born on [...], 2016, Z, born on [...], 2017, and A, born on [...], 2019, are still endangered; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in a foster family for a period of one year with a possible reintegration with one or the other parents after the completion of a substance abuse treatment program and maintaining 3 months of sobriety; [ 17 ] ORDERS both parents to attend a treatment program for substance abuse as soon as possible and to follow the recommendations made by the professionals; [ 18 ] ORDERS the parents to seek counselling for their personal issues; [ 19 ] ORDERS that access rights between the children and the parents be encouraged and supervised by Director Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities; [ 20 ] ORDERS both parents to be and remain sober when in the presence of the children; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the children in the presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the children and the parents for a period of one year; [ 23 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X, Y, Z and A to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town A on April 6, 2020 ________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Adelia Ferreira Ferreira, Lempicka, Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A – Town B Attorney for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Michel Grenier, Avocat – Town C Attorney for the parents Date of hearing: February 12, 2020