2019 QCCQ 15727, 2019 QCCQ 15727

Protection de la jeunesse — 194987 2019 QCCQ 15727 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [ … ] TOWN OF [ … ] Youth Division No: 635-41-000728-169 DATE: January 15, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [ … ] , 2011 [ SOCIAL WORKER 1 ] & [ SOCIAL WORKER 2 ] , Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [ … ] , district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [ … ] , district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 extend a decision rendered on January 31, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [ … ] , 2011.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family and strongly recommends that Y and her are entrusted together in the same foster family, hopefully in Town B until October 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 with a reintegration with the parents as soon as the situation allows it, until October 31, 2019. [ 3 ] The file was fixed for hearing in October 2018, but as the mother has to accompany X in Town C for medical reasons, it was postponed in January 2019.

In the meanwhile, the Court maintains the measures previously ordered. [ 4 ] In January, the mother is still in Town C for medical reason, but represented by Me Lazarov and she asks the Court to proceed in her absence. She admits all the allegations, she agrees with the recommendations, but she has concern for the foster family that will take care of X when she comes back. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel. He admits all the allegations, and he agrees with all the recommendations. [ 6 ] X who is 7 years old is absent, but represented by Me Martineau.

She has four siblings which the situations are also submitted to the Court. [ 7 ] The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that she has a legal mandate and that it is in her best interest to agree with the measures proposed by the DYP. Historical situation [ 8 ] On November 8, 2016 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. The evidence showed that both parents had alcohol consumption issues. The oldest children had to take care of the youngest ones. The parents appeared motivated to change their way of life. Both worked and despite their alcohol issues, they have good parental capacities.

The Court declared that the situation of X was in danger [1] and maintained her with her parents until May 31, 2017. [ 9 ] On May 24, 2017 , the Court revised the decision. The parents’ situation gets worse. The father did not seek help. The mother applied to entrust Centre A. The three oldest children developed defence strategies and left the house when the situation becomes too difficult or conjugal violence occurs. X has a lot of medical problems and suffered from negligence by her parents. The Court entrusted her to a foster family until November 20, 2017.

[ 10 ] On January 31, 2018, as the situation remained the same, the Court prolonged the previous decision until October 30, 2018. Facts [ 11 ] The DYP worker testifies that the father refuse to seek help for his alcohol consumption. The mother is still on a waiting list to attend a treatment centre. Even if the parents did not receive professional help regarding their addiction, they were able to reduce their alcohol consumption since the last order.

Mr. [social worker 1] also adds that the parents generally offer a better collaboration. [ 12 ] As the situation is not totally resolved, an event of conjugal violence occurred on October 18, 2018, and the mother was seriously injured. [ 13 ] X still has important medical problems. She has a rare autoimmune system deficiency, very strong allergy to mosquitoes, a problem with her neck due to a skin graft and several other medical issues which require her to attend very frequent medical appointment.

She also has to follow an exercise program made by a physiotherapist. [ 14 ] On October 10, 2018, she was transferred from a foster family in Town B to a foster family in Town D with her two younger brothers. The day after, she became very sick and the new foster family was very concerned by her well-being. Her respiratory issues were very important and she had a very low blood sugar level, so she was medevaced in Town B and one week after, in Town C. There, the doctor found that she had a blood clot on her brain which affected her respiratory system, and she received neurosurgery.

Now, she is recovering well, but she is still hospitalized as no foster family was found yet. She needs a BiPAP, a respiratory machine when she sleeps and she also needs a very close supervision. [ 15 ] Because of her medical issues, X should stay in Town C to be close to the specialist. The foster family will have to receive training with the medical staff, to learn about the specific needs of X.

The DYP is looking for a foster family who will be reliable, constant and serious to take care of her respiratory problem, but also to take care of her other medical issues which are not resolved. [ 16 ] Even if the mother has an alcohol issue, she stayed close to her daughter and was sober while in Town C. [ 17 ] X misses her parents a lot and would like to be back with them.

The maximum period of placement will be reached in Mars 2019, but as she is not stabilized yet, the DYP only ask for a prolongation. [ 18 ] Mr. [social worker 1] testifies in the presence of the father and explains that the children are missing their parents a lot. Currently the children are entrusted in other communities because of the parents’ issues. The DYP worker would like the parents to continue to make efforts as they did since the last order. He would also like they finalize to resolve their alcohol consumption issues which have an impact on their conjugal relationship.

The parents have to realize the impact of their behaviour on the well-being of their children. [ 19 ] The mother has the interest to go to therapy, but with the medical problem of X, it’s difficult for her to be absent for a long period. The father improve a lot, but he is not sure that he needs a therapy to quit drinking. [ 20 ] Mr. [social worker 1] is confident that he can work with the parents. He wants the parents to understand well the maximum period imposed by the law. [ 21 ] The father testifies with a lot of emotions.

He indicates that he lived very difficult situations in his life, but does not wish to give any details as his children are present in the court room. The Court offered him to ask the children to live, but he said no as it’s too hard on him to speak about that. [ 22 ] He is missing his children a lot. He would like to see them more often and admits that the separation after a home visit is always very difficult. He is sad that no access was organized from Christmas. [ 23 ] He said being totally aware of the situation and what is expecting from him.

He is not ready to go to treatment and think being able to quit with the resources available in his community. His spouse is willing to go to treatment, and he agrees with that. [ 24 ] He feels comfortable to work with Mr. [social worker 1] and to communicate with him. [ 25 ] During the father’s testimony, the two oldest daughters were very emotional. Analysis [ 26 ] The Court took the opportunity to explain the maximum period of placement prescribed by the law to the father, and the reason for this. The situation of the parents is not easy.

They have their personal issues, consequences of the traumas they suffered in their life, and they now have to take care of their children and one has very special needs. [ 27 ] The Court understands this very difficult situation and do not blame the parents for what they suffered from. But now, it’s their responsibility to stop this circle. The father does not want their children to make the future generation living the same difficulties. For this reason, the Court invites him to show to his children that he can take his situation in hand and give his family a better life.

By the example he will give his children, it will be the best heritage he could give them. [ 28 ] The Court alerts the father that the mother will need to be supported in her choice to attend a treatment centre. When she comes back, she will need to live in an environment free from alcohol consumption to make sure she won’t relapse. Together, the parents are able to manage that, and they will appreciate their new way of life exempt from violence. [ 29 ] The father, on his side, does not wish to attend a treatment centre. It’s true to say that leaving a community for few months is a big decision.

But other services exist and the father has to take advantage of it. If he prefers to go to Social Services, to speak with elders, to participate to traditional activities, to healing circle, he can do it. The most important is not the way to do it, the most important is the

result. [ 30 ] The Court invites the father to think about that and to take the necessary steps to continue to improve his situation as he did since the last order. [ 31 ] The Court has the evidence that the situation of the child remains in danger and agrees with the recommended measures.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [ … ] , 2011, are still in danger; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a reintegration with the parents as soon as the situation allows it; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services, such as all follow-ups needed for her medical condition; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 39 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues, including therapy; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision and occur as frequently as possible; [ 41 ] AUTHORIZES extended access during the summer time; [ 42 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection as in relation to medical follow-ups and educational needs; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until August 9, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 15, 2019