2012 QCCQ 20596, 2012 QCCQ 20596

Protection de la jeunesse — 123080 2012 QCCQ 20596 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-024490-112 525-41-024489-114 DATE: July 20, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2007 - and - Y Born on […], 2008 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of July 20, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered May 30, 2011, entrusting the children to the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of one year with aid, counsel and assistance for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The children remain entrusted to the maternal grandparents, who continue to provide a stable and appropriate milieu for them; • The mother is not in a position to resume care of the children, more particularly: . up to December 2011, the mother had regular contacts with the children at the home of the maternal grandparents; . between June and September 2011, the mother had no contact with the youth protection worker; . in September 2011, when at the home of the maternal grandparents, the mother agreed to resume her collaboration; . subsequently, the mother stated her intention to participate in corrective measures, such as participating in a substance abuse assessment, treating her problematic consumption of drugs, and maintaining consistent visitation with the children; . in November 2011, the services of an educator began in order to assist the mother during eventual home visits; . in December 2011, at a meeting to discuss the orientation for the children, after the mother was challenged to take steps to correct the situation, she responded be assaulting her sister; . attempts were subsequently made to contact the mother and to meet with her to process this incident, but until March 2012, she did not

collaborate with the intervention; . between December 2011 and March 2012, the mother did not have any contact with the children, although she remained in telephone contact with the maternal grandmother; . since March 2012, the mother has resumed her collaboration and regularly attends weekly supervised visitation; . educator services have not yet resumed; • The mother stated that she remains committed to working towards having the children entrusted to her care in the near future. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be maintained entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of one year.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 5 ] The father is not present at the hearing, although he was served with a copy of the motions. The father has not been collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection and has not seen his children. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 6 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the recommended measures.

The mother intends to go and live at the grandparents’ home and to address her substance abuse problem. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in their best interest. [ 8 ] The Court also read the Court Report filed by DYP as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that the children are thriving in their grandparents’ care. They are attached to their grandparents and aunt and all their needs are met. [ 9 ] The parents are not in a position to resume the care of their children at this point in time.

The father is not collaborating with DYP and no longer has contact with his children. As for the mother, she must address her personal difficulties if she wants to be in a position to resume the care of her children at the end of the present order. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be maintained in the care of their grandparents.

The evidence in the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents for one year; [ 15 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother will be living at the grandparents’ home; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision by DYP or a third party approved by DYP, after discussion with the mother and the grandparents; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be suspended until the father meets with the workers to determine his intentions regarding his children; [ 18 ] When contacts resume, ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS strongly that the mother undergo a psychological assessment and follow the recommendations made by the psychologist; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage and complete a treatment program for women victim of conjugal violence; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents submit to random drug testing upon request by DYP; [ 22 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo random drug testing; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, meet with the youth workers as requested and inform them of any change of address or telephone number in a delay of 24 hours; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of one year; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed July 26, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Camille Champeval Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Dominique Trahan Counsel for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: July 20, 2012