2016 QCCQ 9813, 2016 QCCQ 9813

Protection de la jeunesse — 164236 2016 QCCQ 9813 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001915-153 640-41-001916-151 DATE: July 4 th , 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2010 Y, born on […], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection on the A C.Y.P.C., working in City A, district A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City B, district B Father of X ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 38 and 91 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 of the A C.Y.P.C. asks the Court to declare the security and development of X, born on […], 2010, and Y, born on […], 2012, endangered in regards of

section 38 b iii) and c of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are absent, even if duly served. The children are represented by Me Angela Tommasel and Me Donald Bourget assists the applicant. [ 3 ] Considering the delay we have to respect for the provisional placement under

section 79 of the Youth Protection Act , the evidence that the parents are well aware of the hearing but they just want again a postponement and they do not want to appear in court, the motion having been deposed in July 2015, the Court accepts to proceed in their absence. [ 4 ] With the testimony of the social worker, the judgment rendered by Quebec Court, youth chamber since May 28 th , 2014, for the oldest sister and the criminal record, the evidence is done beyond balance of probalities that the security and development of the X and Y are in danger because they are neglected and have psychological ill treatment. [ 5 ] Since 2014, the parents display alcoholic and conjugal issues.

They cumulate many separations over the years. [ 6 ] On March 14 th , 2015, the Youth Protection had to intervene because the mother and her spouse had a fight while intoxicated and left the children without proper supervision. They had to intervene again on March 28 th , April 11 th , 22 nd and 28 th , May 19 th and 31 st , 2015. Each time, the mother was intoxicated and was violent toward her spouse. [ 7 ] She was arrested, released on conditions, and after detained but she didn’t change.

On June 2015, Mr B informed the youth protection worker that he was overwhelmed by the situation and the children were entrusted to the maternal grandparents. [ 8 ] When the mother was released from detention in August 2015, the grandmother declared she could not take care of the children anymore. Then, the children went back with the mother. [ 9 ] On September 17 th , 2015, the children were entrusted to the mother provisionally. On February 5 th , 2016, the mother was arrested for conjugal violence on Mr B, while intoxicated. Same kind of event accured again on February 9 th , 2016.

The mother was detained and the children were entrusted to Mr B under conditions, notably to remain in City A.

[ 10 ] But few days after, on February 12 th , 2016, Mr B took the plane for City C with the children without authorisation of the Youth Protection. The social worker could not find the location of Mr B and the children. On February 24 th , Mr B called the Youth Protection but he refused to give the location of the children. They were found on February 25 th , at the house of the grandmother of Mr B in City B, with the collaboration of the Centre jeunesse B. [ 11 ] The mother was released and back in City A on February 22 nd .

The children were returned in City A and entrusted to the foster family of the maternal grandmother because of the mother’s problem with alcohol. [ 12 ] Since, Mr B is very aggressive towards the social worker and he refuses to collaborate. [ 13 ] Over the last year, the parents have many opportunities to modify their way of life but they never collaborate. The children were unstable and regularly exposed to their parent’s consumption and violence. It is urgent to provide them a stable and secure place and to identify what the parents should do if they really want their children back with them.

An intervention plan should be provided to them with all the information of consequences if they don’t collaborate. [ 14 ] For the measures, the social worker recommends, in her social study, that the children be placed for a year in a foster home. This foster home is identified as the one of the maternal grandmother. As she has a son who consumes alcohol and drugs abusively at home, the grandmother often goes with the children on their mother’s place.

Doing so, the grandmother supervises the contacts between the mother and the children. [ 15 ] The father wants contacts with the children and would like to have them fostered in his extended family down south. [ 16 ] The choice of the foster family is the responsibility of the Director of Youth Protection. He must consider the best interest of the children and must decide, if he cannot have the parent’s collaboration, a life project for the children. Even if the resources are limited up North, the Director of Youth Protection has the obligation to decide what is in the best’s interest of those children.

Is he in position to work for their reintegration with the parents or one of them? If not, he must provide them a stable and secure home on a long term basis.

CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2010, and Y, born on […], 2012 endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS their placement in a foster family for one year, until May 31 st , 2017; [ 20 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the contacts and visits of the children with the mother and the father as for frequency, duration and degree of supervision; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits in the parents place when the children visit them. [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 24 ] RECOMMANDS that the mother and the father seek for individual therapy for their personal issues; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the order. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Angela Tommasel Attorney for the child Me Donald Bourget Attorney for the applicant Date of hearing: May 24 th , 2016