2018 QCCQ 19364, 2018 QCCQ 19364

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810807 2018 QCCQ 19364 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000654-159 DATE: October 30, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, [...] Applicant and A, [...] Mother and B, [...] ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on December 19, 2017, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2007.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family until November 30, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and that the placement has to be prolonged until she reaches her majority. [ 3 ] The mother is absent but represented by Me Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her daughter are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Neptune.

He recognizes that the security and development of her daughter are still in danger. His intention was to challenge the application, but after speaking with X he accepts to respect her desire and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] X who is now 11 years old is present and represented by Me Léonard. She agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 6 ] On March 5, 2014 , voluntary measures were signed with the parents because of their drinking and conjugal violence issues.

After few months, the parents understood the importance not to consume and fight in the presence of X and her siblings, and took some measures to protect them. It was not enough because some time X went by herself to her grandmother when her parents consume.

The collaboration of the parents is minimal. [ 7 ] On May 4, 2015 , the Court was seized of the situation and declare the security and development of X in danger [1] and entrusted her to her maternal grandmother with progressive reintegration with the parents if the situation allows it. [ 8 ] On August 20, 2015 , the parents still display alcohol issues and after another event of conjugal violence, the parents got separated. The mother went to live at the grandmother’s home with her children. X was doing well at her grandmother’s place, but she was affected by her parent’s separation.

The Court revised the decision and entrusted X to her mother as long as she resides to the maternal grandmother. [ 9 ] On December 10, 2015 , the evidence showed that the situation was getting better. The mother made some efforts to avoid her daughter seeing her intoxicated. The mother was looking for her own house. The father also still displayed alcohol consumption issues but was able to be sober in the presence of the child. The Court entrusted the child to the mother.

[ 10 ] On April 14, 2016 , Justice Gravel entrusted the child to her parents because she used to go from her father’s place to her mother’s place whenever she wants. Even if the parents have difficulty to communicate, they are able to manage the custody and the access. [ 11 ] On September 13, 2016 , the Court revised the decision. The evidence showed that the parents got back together two weeks after the last hearing. They did not collaborate anymore with the DYP worker, and even the grandmother refused to give news about the family.

It was totally impossible for the DYP worker to have contact with the parents to see if everything goes well with the child. Few days before the court hearing, the parents got separated. The mother refused to explain the reasons and she said that she does not want to collaborate with the DYP worker. The Court entrusted the child to a foster home for six months. [ 12 ] On March 3, 2017 , both parents were detained and said that they follow programs for their alcohol consumption issues. X was doing very well in her foster family and at school.

The Court prolonged the placement and order a reintegration with one of the parents if the situation allows it. [ 13 ] On December 19, 2017 , the father completed a therapy but relapsed shortly after. He was in a halfway house in Town A and received services for his issues. The mother still consumed but improved her collaboration with the DYP. X was entrusted to Ms. C in Town B, and she was doing very well. She loved living in this community and when she went in Town C for visits she asks to go back before the end.

The parents are still separated and both want to have their child back under their care but they know they have to improve their situation. [ 14 ] The revision was supposed to be heard on October 5, 2018, but a postponement was granted because the father was at Mine A for his job, and the mother and X were nowhere to be found. Facts [ 15 ] The situation of the parents remains the same. Even if they are now separated, since the last order, they had an unstable relationship with episodes of conjugal violence and consumption.

They did not seek help for their personal issues. [ 16 ] The father was released from jail in February 2018, after being sentenced for conjugal violence, and drink and driving offences. He admits having a lot of difficulty to maintain his sobriety while unoccupied. [ 17 ] X is still with Ms. C and wants to stay there, Ms. C is available to take care of her until she reaches her majority. X is described as a smiley and pleasant girl. She is bright and enjoys learning. She is also very sociable. X created strong bonds with Ms. C, her spouse Mr.

D and also with their extended family. [ 18 ] X went three times in Town C for visits and the mother admits that her and the father consumed alcohol in her presence. X does not open much about her parent’s situation. Analysis [ 19 ] The maximum delay of placement is reached since September 2018. The situation of the parents is unstable since few years now, and no improvement is shown. They did not take steps to address their alcohol and violence issues. They are not able to provide a safe environment to their daughter.

The visits are also difficult to organize because of their consumption and the impact of this consumption on their mood. [ 20 ] X has the right to live in a safe and violence-free environment. Even if she is only 11 years old, she is able to express her wishes and she convinced her father to accept her choice. She knows that being with Ms. C is in her best interest. [ 21 ] The Court hopes that everything will continue to go as well as now for X, but reminds the DYP that a close follow-up is necessary to insure that the traumas she experienced in her childhood will not resurface in her adolescence.

She has the chance to be entrusted in an [Origin A] family where she is evolving very well. X and the foster family have the right to be supported to preserve this stability. The foster family should be invited to not hesitate to communicate with the DYP for any question she could have. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS this application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2007, are still in danger; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the foster family of Ms. C and Mr. D, if they are accredited as such; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to any family violence; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol consumption and personal issues; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision, and that the access is as frequent as possible; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the family and the foster family;

[ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE until the child reaches her majority. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 30, 2018