2012 QCCQ 15593, 2012 QCCQ 15593

Protection de la jeunesse — 123268 2012 QCCQ 15593 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NOS : 640-41-001351-110, 640-41-001352-118 and 640-41-001353-116 DATE: June 13, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2007 Y, born on [...], 2006 Z, born on [...], 2008 MS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Quebec, district A Petitioner and MRS.

A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother and MR. B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], delegate to the Director of Youth Protection A, is seizing the Court of three petitions for reviewing the last decisions rendered concerning Y, 6 years old, X, 4 years old, and Z, 3 years old, children of Mrs. A and Mr. B.

In the judgment rendered on April 7, 2011, Honourable Louis A. Legault declared the security and development of the children in danger and ordered their placement in foster families. Now, the petitioner is asking for the placement of Z in his foster family until majority and the reintegration of Y and X with their father. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present, represented by Me Claude Beaudet. The mother, absent, is represented by Me Daniel Ouellette and Me Clara Egervari represents the children.

Me Robert-André Adam assists the petitioner. [ 3 ] Last year, the security and development of the children were declared in danger because their needs were neglected by the parents. They both abused alcohol and drugs. The Social Services have been involved with the family since April 2009. The parents separated in 2009. While the children were with the mother, the father did not support her in any way. He was involved with another woman. He did not benefit from the help offered in the voluntary measures and he was not close to his children.

He asked for X and Y's visits a few times and never asked for Z. [ 4 ] Over the last year, two Social Workers were appointed in these files. The first one, Ms. [Social Worker 2], reported in her Review Report, filed under

section 294.1 C.P.C. as her testimony, that the father was not involved in the life of his children and did not support them. He showed minimal collaboration with the Social Worker, and once, Y was found with her father and two other men, all of whom were drunk. [ 5 ] Ms. [Social Worker 2] made most of her interventions with the mother, trying to motivate her to quit consuming alcohol and drugs. She also scheduled and supervised the mother’s visits with her children.

But the mother often refused or neglected to exercise her visitation rights, and on some occasions, some visits ended abruptly because the mother was intoxicated and the children were left without supervision. [ 6 ] The second Social Worker, Ms. [Social Worker 1], has been working in these files since mid-February 2012. She is aware that the father visited his children three times and she supervised the two visits that were scheduled.

She did not meet with the children afterwards to verify whether they were satisfied or not, nor did she meet the father before the visits. [ 7 ] She met with the father only a few times and learned that he had attended an addiction treatment program. He lives at his parents' place with his girlfriend who is eight-month pregnant.

[ 8 ] Last April 10, the Social Worker informed the father she would recommend the reintegration of X and Y because he had convinced her that he would be sober from now on and would change his way of life. The support and investment the grandparents offered at the April 13 meeting, convinced her it would be in the children's best interest. [ 9 ] However, the evidence reveals that the father has never been involved in his children's life.

No evidence is provided on his parental abilities, only that he attended therapy a few months ago and that he wants to change his way of life for his girlfriend and their coming baby. He never collaborated with the Social Worker and is not aware of his children's evolution. His mother would support him with the children but she spends most of her time in the bush. [ 10 ] Concerning the mother's situation, it remains problematic. Although she really cares for her children, she is unable to assume them.

Even the irregular visits are sometimes traumatic for the children. [ 11 ] The children Y and X live in stable foster families and appreciate the security and attention they get from the foster parents. The mother's visits sometimes create bad reactions. They are afraid of her. [ 12 ] No evidence is provided on observations made on the children when the father visits them, whether they know his girlfriend, how they react to her authority, etc. [ 13 ] In such circumstances, the Court cannot agree with the reintegration of the two oldest children with the father. They will remain in their respective foster family.

Over the next months, we shall see the father's interest in the children and whether he develops his parental abilities. [ 14 ] Considering the lack of services and objectives in the social follow up, the Court recommends an investigation by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to see if the children's rights were wronged. [ 15 ] For the youngest child Z, the evidence reveals that he has lived in the foster family ever since he is two months old. The foster parents, Mr. C and his spouse are truly attached to him and consider Z as their own child.

Z also considers them as his parents. He does not know his mother and his father and became insecure when he had visits at his mother's place. [ 16 ] The father is not involved with Z, never visited him or provided for him. [ 17 ] According to

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court must provide a stable and permanent life project for that child as he has been living in the family of Mr. C since he is two months old. The parents acknowledge that evidence and agree with the recommendation. [ 18 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of Y, X and Z are still in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS the placement of Z in the foster family of Mr.

C until majority; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of Y and X in foster families for a period of six months; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents for the duration of the judgment; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to attend regular meetings with the Social Worker and to follow her recommendations including parental skills development; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise (terms and conditions and third-party supervision) the contacts and visits of the parents with their children; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Social Worker to make a visitation

schedule for the father; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS an investigation by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse in the files; [ 28 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adam, Attorney for the petitioner Me Claude Beaudet, Attorney for the father Me Daniel Ouellette, Attorney for the mother Me Clara Egervari, Attorney for the children

Date of hearing: April 19, 2012