r v. B, 2016 QCCQ 6478

Protection de la jeunesse — 162635 2016 QCCQ 6478 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004907-153 760-41-004904-150 760-41-004905-157 760-41-004906-155 DATE: March 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2006 Y, born [...], 2004 Z, born [...], 2002 A, born [...], 2001 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

B C Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents motions for the revision of a Court decision rendered on August 13, 2015 in regards to the siblings X, Y, Z and A. [ 2 ] In virtue of the judgment in force, the Court orders the application of various measures of aid and counsel for a period of one year in reason of a serious risk of neglect and for A, with an additional situation of physical abuse implicating his father.

X, Y and Z remain in the care of their parents, while A stays with his mother with supervised contacts with his father. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that a degeneration of the parent’s personal situations justifies that the Court review the previous judgment and render further measures for a period of 4 months. As to A, the recommendation is that the Court entrusts him to his paternal grandparents and permit unsupervised contacts with his father.

As to Y, X and Z, the Director recommends that they alternate between their father and their maternal grandparents. [ 4 ] For all the children, the Director seeks the supervision of the visitation with their mother while permitting that the parties may agree to its lifting during the course of the measures. [ 5 ] Both the parents and the children consign their admissions and agree to the orientation proposed by the Director.

[ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] As of the last order, the parents continue to alternate weekly custody of Y, X and Z, while A remains in the exclusive care of his mother. [ 8 ] Within the intervention plan, the parents agree to work on their respective personal issues by receiving services. [ 9 ] The father undertakes a psychological follow-up and maintains an active participation, with the objective of working on the adequate management of his emotions.

Although the parties agree that it is necessary to accompany A and his father in a reconciliation process, little progress is made and A remains reticent to resuming contacts until the end of the year. [ 10 ] The Court previously determines that the mother struggles with her alcohol consumption and requires assistance to help control this coping mechanism, which impacts the children, thereby creating a serious risk of neglect. [ 11 ] The mother undertakes an evaluation process with the CRD Foster and a safety net is put in place to support her and the children.

This is insufficient to stem the degeneration of the mother’s alcohol use and there are repeated incidents of driving under the influence and drinking in the presence of the children. The mother is unable to put into action her promises to stem her alcohol use, which becomes increasingly present in the family environment. [ 12 ] On November 18, 2015, the case worker, in seeing that the mother is under the influence of alcohol during a visit, recommends that Y, X and Z remain with their father and the A reside with his paternal grand-parents.

The parents agree to this measure. [ 13 ] The mother’s situation continues to degenerate and her hospitalization is necessary in reason of her depressive emotional state. She refuses to allow access to her medical records in relation to this event. [ 14 ] The Court renders a provisional order on December 22, confirming the change in environments for the children and ordering the supervision of the mother’s contacts. [ 15 ] Also at this hearing, A presents a request to also live with his father and this, despite them not having had any contacts since the incident of physical abuse in April 2015.

Although the Court refuses his request and maintains the status quo of his situation, the confluence of events precipitates the resumption of contacts between A and his father, which occur since on weekends. [ 16 ] Initially, the parties agree that the mother exercise visits in the children’s environments and this, under the supervision of the adults residing there.

After the mother fails to maintain her sobriety for a contact on December 28 th , the Director insists that these occur under its direct supervision; situation which remains in force and which is going generally well. [ 17 ] The children are all showing changes in their respective behaviours to various degrees.

A particularly exhibits aggressive tendencies which affect his social interactions and his academics. [ 18 ] The overall collaboration of the parents is uneven as they remain reserved and can lack transparency. [ 19 ] On the hearing scheduled for February 5, 2016, both the father and the children are absent. The Director then learns that the previous day, the father drinks alcohol to the point of intoxication and this, in the presence of his children.

When contacted by the case worker, the father refuses to come to Court, verbalizes being overwhelmed by the situation and blames the children for not reminding him. [ 20 ] The Director seeks an emergency protective measure and the Court, upon evaluating the evidence, entrusts the children Y, X and Z to other significant members of the maternal family. [ 21 ] This situation puts in focus the fact of the father’s struggles with the responsibilities of assuming the full-time care of his three youngest children while receiving A on weekends; a situation he has kept guarded from the case worker.

The father recognizes being overwhelmed. This is especially pertinent in the case of A, where the father asserts being unsure of how to parent him adequately to respond to his behavioural problems. [ 22 ] In order to alleviate the father in his responsibilities and allow him to progress in addressing his personal challenges, the parties agree that the youngest children remain in his care during the week and with their maternal grandparents during the weekends (in the absence of their mother).

For A, the status quo remains. [ 23 ] The mother regularly attends an alcohol recovery group, yet continues to struggle with her alcohol dependency. A few days before the final hearing, the mother is in a car accident and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The supervision of the contacts with her children remains therefore pertinent in order to preserve the children from her difficulties, while allowing to maintain a positive relationship. [ 24 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court is satisfied of the necessity to revise the measures in the best interests of the children.

The continuing flux of the parent’s respective difficulties maintain the situation of endangerment and require that a short period of measures be put in place in order to verify their ability to forward their efforts and rehabilitate their parental abilities. [ 25 ] More notably, the mother needs to stem her alcohol use by way of recognizing the basis of such and continue to receive services in this regard. [ 26 ] As for the father, he requires continued support in responding to the children’s needs on a constant and serene basis.

Continuing the grandparent’s involvement with the children on weekends is a reasonable short-term solution in awaiting the mother being able to resume regular access.

[ 27 ] The relationship between A and his father is resumed, but again, the foundations of their recent breach must be addressed as it is clear from the evidence that A continues to present opposition destined to test his paternal environment.

To this end, a therapeutic process is to commence which will have this objective. [ 28 ] For all these reasons, the Court endorses the conclusions sought by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 29 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motions for revision of a Court decision; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the children Y, X and Z be entrusted to their father on weekdays and to their maternal grandmother from Friday after school until Sunday at 7:00 pm; [ 33 ] TAKES ACT that the mother will not be present at home from Friday afternoon until Sunday at 7:00 pm; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child A be entrusted to his paternal grandparents; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child A and his father be following mutual agreement between the parties and following a calendar established between them, in the next two weeks; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and following a calendar to be established between the parties, in the next two weeks; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision of the contacts between the children and their mother following agreement between the parties; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard on their children's regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that the child A implicate himself in the follow-up provided by the CSRE educator; [ 42 ] TAKES ACT that the mother is participating in a follow-up regarding her alcohol consumption; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the father partake in an evaluation regarding his alcohol consumption, and in a follow-up if such is recommended; [ 44 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 4 months; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: March 8, 2016