2014 QCCQ 20009, 2014 QCCQ 20009

Protection de la jeunesse — 148084 2014 QCCQ 20009 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001730-149 DATE: December 23, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X , born on […], 2013 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B 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 a motion asking the Court to review and extend a judgment rendered on May 27, 2014, by the Honourable Denyse Leduc who ordered the placement of the child in a foster family for a period of three months. [ 2 ] A motion under

section 79 of the Youth Protection Act , asking for the provisional foster care of the child was granted on August 27, 2014 and the hearing for the petition under

section 95 YPA was set for October 15, 2014. [ 3 ] On October 15, 2014, a postponement was requested by Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault on behalf of the father. All parties were in agreement with such a motion provided that the child remained in the foster family until the next court date which was set on December 11, 2014, in Town A. [ 4 ] For the present hearing, the father is not present despite his request for a postponement obtained in October. Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault, who was acting on behalf of the father at that date, asks the Court to withdraw from the file given the fact that Mr.

B has not given her a mandate to act on his behalf. This motion is granted. [ 5 ] [Social worker 2], Youth Protection Worker in Town B, testified that, on December 3, 2014, she called the father who was supposed to meet her in the afternoon. The father never showed up. On December 8, 2014, Mrs. [Social worker 2] left a message for Mr. B. The day after, she went to his place during lunch hour. The father was obviously just waking up. He stated that he would not come to court. The Social Worker asked him to at least call his lawyer which he did not. [ 6 ] The mother is present and represented by Mtre.

Aubrée Coutanson. Mtre. Clara Lafrance-Egervari acts on behalf of the child and Mtre. Suzanne Arpin represents the Director of Youth Protection. They ask the Court to proceed in the absence of the father which is in the best interest of the child given the fact that he has been subjected to compulsory foster care since the end of August. It is in the best interest of the child to proceed without further delay.

Moreover, the mother travelled form Town B to Town A for the hearing. [ 7 ] The revision report written by the applicant is filed in lieu of her testimony with the agreement of the parties. [ 8 ] The evidence consists of the content of the revision report and the admissions made by the mother. The Court has preponderant evidence of the following facts: • In May 2014, the father was incarcerated in Town C;

• The father has not attended a therapy as ordered by the Court in May; • The father admits using drugs and alcohol; • The father has not had regular contacts with his son since March, 2014, but inquires about his evolution from time to time; • The mother attended and completed a treatment program in Town D from April 13 to May 22, 2014; • On July 2, 2014, during an access right at the mother’s place, she left and went drinking; • On July 3, 2014, the mother was so intoxicated that she passed out and X was under the care of his sisters; • On July 14, 2014, the mother went to Town E with one of her other children for a medical appointment; • Upon her return, she drank alcohol from Town E to Town B, dropped her son at the family’s place and left to continue to drink with the grandparents; • The mother has had regular contacts with X; • On July 23, 2014, the mother stated that she was willing to meet with the [Program A] worker in order to, once again, attend a treatment centre to resolve her alcohol addiction; • From July 24 to 29, 2014, the mother lived at the women’s shelter in Town F where she received family and individual counselling; • The mother returned at the same women’s shelter on July 31, 2014. [ 9 ] The Court is informed that the mother has an interview with Le Program A on January 8, 2015, in order to be admitted at this centre.

The mother would like to take

part in Program A Mother and Child. [ 10 ] She will have to be alone at Program A for a certain period of time before X can join her. [ 11 ] The Director of Youth Protection is in agreement with the mother attending such program if she is admitted. The Court informed the parties that a foster family placement will take place for a period of one year and, if the mother is admitted at Program A, they must ask for provisional measures in order to entrust the child to his mother and ask the Court to review the current Court order on a subsequent court date.

The mother will not need to leave Le Program A in order to be present in Court if she gives a clear mandate to her counsel. All the parties agree with this procedure. [ 12 ] So, if the mother is not admitted at Program A, the child will remain stable in his foster family.

The Court wishes that the mother be admitted because such program is likely to put an end to her alcohol related problem and to ensure the reintegration of X with her on a permanent basis provided that the she completes the entire treatment program. [ 13 ] CONSIDERING the revision report; [ 14 ] CONSIDERING the admissions made by the mother; [ 15 ] CONSIDERING that the counsel of the child is of the opinion that such measures are in the best interest of X; [ 16 ] The Court : [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS the placement of X, born on […], 2013, in a foster family for a period of one year starting on December 11, 2014; [ 20 ] ORDERS that access rights between the parents and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and modalities; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents be and remain sober when in presence of the child; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the child in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 23 ] ORDERS both parents to attend therapy or treatment for their addiction problems and their personal issues in the best delay; [ 24 ] TAKES NOTICE that the mother is taking steps to attend treatment at Program A and that she would like to participate to the Mother and Child Program; [ 25 ] TAKES NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection will assess if it is in the best interest of X to integrate such program with his mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and his parents for a period of one year; [ 27 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 28 ] ENTRUSTS X’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Suzanne Arpin Arpin, Gaudreault Attorneys Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Clara Lafrance-Egervari Counsel for the child Mtre. Aubrée Coutanson Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: December 11, 2014