2016 QCCQ 15421, 2016 QCCQ 15421

Protection de la jeunesse — 167522 2016 QCCQ 15421 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 635-41-000643-152 635-41-000644-150 635-41-000645-157 DATE: November 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2002 Y, born on [...], 2004 Z, born on [...], 2005 [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 Applicant and B, residing and domiciled in A City, Quebec, district A Mother and C, residing and domiciled in A City, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (par. 1) and 75, 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 submits to the Court three motions for revision of a decision rendered by Judge Lise Gagnon on February 18, 2016. She was then reviewing the decisions rendered on September 14, 2015.

At that time, the Director of Youth Protection recommended that the children be entrusted to their maternal grand-mother with reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it. It was granted and in force until February 2016. [ 2 ] At that date, evidence reveals that the mother was living with her children and with her new boyfriend, Mr. D, and it was found by the new social worker. Because of the release of Mr.

E, ex-spouse of the mother and mainly the source of the children’s compromising, a safety plan had been prepared , but the mother didn’t follow all of it. [ 3 ] At that time, Z and A were entrusted back with the grand-mother and F in foster family. X and Y were placed in foster families. The Director of school, as mentioned in the judgment, had reported 90 incidents of disciplinary issues for the three boys, X, Y and Z. [ 4 ] Judge Gagnon wrote that this family is known by the Director of Youth Protection for almost eight years. It is more than time to clarify a life plan.

Their lack of reaction, when informed that they would be moved, was very preoccupying and she asked that they be assessed in a short delay with a life plan prepared urgently. [ 5 ] She then placed the children X, Y and Z in a foster family until October 20, 2016, ordered their psychological evaluation and also recommended such evaluation for the mother. [ 6 ] Today, I have in evidence that X has services for his behavioural problems, that he has been changed of foster families twelve to fifteen times since the last judgment, that he is aggressive, punching things and hitting persons and that he has also been suspended of school. [ 7 ] For Z, he has also behavioural problems for which he has been through many foster families since the last judgment.

He defies the authority and fights with peers. [ 8 ] Y is having difficulties to express his emotions.

[ 9 ] The mother is meeting a social worker regularly and is still in relation with Mr. D who also participates to the follow-up. She testifies that she only drinks once per two weeks and does not have the same alcohol problems as she had in the past. She does not report to the social worker regularly. But we have to consider that the mother is shy, not very talkative and that she needs a special approach. We must develop a relation with her before she opens up. The psychological report mentions all her “limitations”. The psychologist made few recommendations to her, but the mother did not follow all of them yet.

She is now working regularly, has a nice apartment and is well organised. [ 10 ] The father is present. Even if he is not involve regularly in his children’s life, he is always present at the Court and has his own opinion of the situation. He wants that his children come back in A City and he identifies two sisters who might be interested to assume them. Even if he is not meeting the social worker regularly, he told his sisters’ names, but they are not evaluated yet as foster families. [ 11 ] With such evidence, I have to consider: 11.1.1.X and Y have developed over the year serious behavioral problems.

They had adapt themselves to many foster families since the last judgment; 11.1.2. The parties did not appeal of the last judgment in which the judge stated that the Director of Youth Protection should prepare a life plan for each of them; 11.1.3. The Court understands that there is a lack of parental mother’s capacities and nothing to support the reintegration of the children; 11.1.4. Adding to that, today we have evidence of the serious problems of behaviour of specially two children. 11.1.5. That the last judgment was not respected.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y and Z are in danger; [ 14 ] ORDERS that X and Y be placed in a A Center until the end of June 2017 with the recommendation that they attend a group home in A City; [ 15 ] ORDERS that Z be placed in a foster family until the end of June 2017 with the services of an external educator; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the mother continue her follow-up with Mrs.

G; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and the parents be under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection (with a calendar provided to the three children and the parents); [ 18 ] ORDERS that the children be evaluated by a psychologist as soon as possible; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the children until June 30, 2017; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the house of the mother or of the father; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse investigate the situations; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Geneviève Apollon Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the children Mtre. Marie-Claude De Gagné Attorney for the mother Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 14, 2016