2020 QCCQ 14520, 2020 QCCQ 14520

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010152 2020 QCCQ 14520 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001856-142; 640-41-001855-144 DATE: December 9, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER A], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A of Health and Social Services A Applicant and X, born on [...], 2008 and Y, born on [...], 2010 Children 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 an application asking the Court to extend a previous judgment ordering the placement of the two children in a foster family for a period of 6 months. [ 2 ] The Director is seeking the extension for an additional period of 6 months with reintegration to the care of the father. [ 3 ] The placement is not challenged by the parties. However, the mother strongly takes issue with the reintegration of the children with the father.

She would like them to be living with her. [ 4 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the mother, through her lawyer, requested a postponement. She was then not present in Court. Her motive was that she hadn’t had time to prepare the file with her lawyer. The Court denied this motion for postponement given the fact that the mother was present at the hearing on provisional measures held on October 8, 2020, so she knew 2 months in advance the date of the hearing for the application under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . Only neglect can explain such a situation and the Court cannot condone such a behaviour. It is not in the best interest of the children not to know where they are going to live for the next months. After the Court made this decision, the lawyer who presented this motion for postponement asked to Court to withdraw from the file. This request was granted. [ 5 ] Later on that day, the mother presented herself for the hearing.

She displayed a difficult behaviour, was clearly not happy about the fact that the files had not been postponed. [ 6 ] She also insisted to have two of her oldest children testify, hoping that they would say that the father’s place was not appropriate, which they did not say. By her behaviour, the mother showed that what she wants is more important than the well-being of her children who were clearly not comfortable to testify. [ 7 ] For the children, Mtre. Yan Massé made general admissions of the facts alleged in the application.

Considering the testimonies and the reports filed, the Court has preponderant evidence of the following facts : [ 8 ] The children remain in the same foster home and they were doing generally well. They were able to express that they were happy in their current foster home. [ 9 ] The mother has not taken any steps to resolve her issues, especially her alcohol-related problem. She states that she is going to attend a treatment centre in the future because the Director of Youth Protection requested it.

[ 10 ] Even though the parents have been living apart for 5 years, there is no communication between them and the mother is still bitter about their relationship. She is contemplating pressing charges against the father for events that would have occurred when they were living together. [ 11 ] For the time being, the mother does not have a stable place where to stay. She is described by the Social Worker as collaborative and honest. [ 12 ] As for the father, he now lives in Town A with his new partner and their child at his spouse’s mother’s place.

They have been living there for 3 years and they have room to welcome X and Y. [ 13 ] There is no conflict in this house and zero tolerance for alcohol consumption there. The father has been sober for the past 3 years. [ 14 ] Both parents are asking for the reintegration of the children with them and the children are caught between their father and their mother. [ 15 ] It is too soon to decide with which parent the reintegration will take place. The mother is described as capable. If she gets a house in the near future, she would be able to care for her two children.

This means the children would remain in their community, attend the same school and keep their friends. [ 16 ] The Court must also take into consideration the fact that the mother clearly affirmed that she will meet with police officers in order to have charges laid against the father about events related to domestic violence that occurred in the past.

So, this situation creates uncertainty regarding the future. [ 17 ] The Court comes to the conclusion that keeping all doors open for now would be in the best interest of the children. [ 18 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 20 ] EXTENDS the previous judgment; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2008, and Y, born on [...], 2010, are still endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in a foster family until the end of the school year in June 2021; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the family for the same period; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and the parents be encouraged, but supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, the length and the modalities; [ 25 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother take steps in order to benefit from a treatment for alcohol-related problems; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue the steps already taken in order to resolve her housing problem; [ 27 ] ORDERS that both parents report to the Director of Youth Protection on a regular basis and inform the Social Worker of their situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Attorney for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Michel Grenier, Avocat Attorney for the father Mrs. A Mother

Date of hearing: December 9, 2020