2020 QCCQ 9589, 2020 QCCQ 9589

Protection de la jeunesse — 201867 2020 QCCQ 9589 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division » No: 614-41-000420-192; 614-41-000421-190 DATE: February 11, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2003 Y, born on [...], 2006 ADOLESCENTS 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 applications asking the Court to review and extend a previous judgment rendered on July 4, 2019, ordering the placement of the youths in foster families for a period of 6 months with other assistance measures. [ 2 ] At the hearing, Mtre. Yan Massé acts on behalf of the teenagers. Mtre. Michel Grenier represents the mother. Mtre. Marie- Josée Ayoub represents the father, who is not present.

This one was duly served for the December hearing, but was not present at that date. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to proceed with a dispensation of service. To support this motion, Mrs. [Social Worker 2], team leader, was heard. The father would have called on January 30, asking why he was going to court. The witness explained to him the purpose of this hearing. He did not give her his address. He said that he was living with one of his daughters and this one couldn’t provide her own address! The mother went to the father’s place on the morning of the hearing.

He could not attend because he was drunk. [ 4 ] So, the Court GRANTS the motion for the dispensation of service. [ 5 ] Revision reports and complementary reports were filed. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that the mother attended a treatment centre from September 22 to October 16, 2019. Since then, she has been able to maintain her sobriety. She attends AA meetings. She currently lives at [Center A], but she will get a supervised apartment from [Center A] at the end of February.

She exercised her access rights with the children regularly. [ 7 ] The Director is of the opinion that both children should be reunited with their mother as soon as she has an apartment with a short placement as a safety net. [ 8 ] The father remains uninvolved in the lives of the teenagers and has not offered any collaboration to the Director of Youth Protection. His situation remains the same and any access rights must be subject to his collaboration to a social follow-up and an assessment to determine if he would be able to be and remain regular in his access rights.

To appear and disappear from the life of the children is detrimental to them. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT:

[ 9 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 10 ] REVIEWS the previous judgments; [ 11 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X and Y are still endangered; [ 12 ] ORDERS that Y, be entrusted to his maternal grandmother for a period of 3 months, with reintegration with his mother as soon as she gets an apartment; [ 13 ] ORDERS that X, be entrusted to a foster family for a period of 3 months, with possible reintegration with her mother as soon as she gets an apartment; [ 14 ] ORDERS aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the youths and the mother for a period of 6 months; [ 15 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the father if he requests such a follow- up; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the access rights between the teenagers and their father be pre-authorized by the Director of Youth Protection after having assessed the seriousness of the father to be present in the life of the youths and his capacity to be regular in his access rights, with the consent of the teenagers, if it is in their best interest and ORDERS these access rights to be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and modalities, including the presence of a third party, approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [1] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the measures ordered if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [2] ENTRUSTS the situations of Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town A on April 3, 2020 ________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira, Lempicka, Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A – Town B Attorney for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Michel Grenier, Avocat – Town C Attorney for the mother Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub Avocats inc – Town D Attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 11, 2020