2011 QCCQ 7423, 2011 QCCQ 7423

Protection de la jeunesse — 111879 2011 QCCQ 7423 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000398-112 635-41-000399-110 DATE: April 14, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X AND Y, both domiciled and residing in city A, Quebec, district A Children -and- A, domiciled and residing in city A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing in city A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to declare that the security and development of X, born on […], 2007 and Y, born on […], 2009, are in danger under

section 38(b)(2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the children were absent but represented by their lawyer. Both parents were present but not represented by counsel. THE FACTS [ 3 ] The following facts are admitted or proven on a balance of probabilities. [ 4 ] The father displays a serious alcohol problem.

To a lesser degree, the mother also has unhealthy drinking habits. [ 5 ] Last November the father, while intoxicated, had to go to the nursing station to receive stitches to the head for an incident, which occurred while he was caring alone for his two-year-old son. [ 6 ] On January 2011, the parents signed a provisional agreement by which both parents agreed to entrust the children to someone sober in the event they were planning to consume alcohol. [ 7 ] Later the same day, a Youth Protection worker, had to break down the door of the parent's house as the father was unconscious due to heavy drinking.

The father has no recollection of the event since the Youth Protection worker could not wake him up. As for the mother, she admits leaving her children with the father to go visit friends knowing the state he was in. However, in her mind, the situation didn't put her children's' safety at risk. [ 8 ] The same situation occurred in February. That time the father didn't pass out but he could not stand up on his own. The children were once again left without adequate parental supervision.

Soon after, this led to a compulsory foster care order of both children. [ 9 ] The father timidly admits having an alcohol problem, but denies needing professional help in that regard. He believes he can quit on his own. For her part, the mother is thinking about slowing down or quitting without any definite plan in mind.

[ 10 ] This environment is certainly not the most appropriate to provide these young children with adequate supervision and support. In that way, it constitutes a situation in which there is a serious risk that the parents do not provide for their children basic needs if they do not receive help to control the father's binge drinking and to understand the seriousness of the situation with regards to the children. APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 11 ] The Director of Youth Protection asked that both children be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months.

Without agreeing per say to the placement, the parents feel it should be shorter than the one suggested by the D.Y.P. Moreover, they question the quality of care provided by the actual foster family. Counsel for the children argues that a placement of four months with an intensive follow-up by the D.Y.P. is sufficient. He fears that a six-month placement might discourage the parents. [ 12 ] The length of the petitioner's request relies on the fact that a very solid bond exists between the parents and the children and that a longer period of placement could weaken that bond.

At the same time, she is of the opinion that there is a lot of work to do in a short period of time. During the provisional compulsory order, the parent's respect of the scheduled visits was irregular. Sometimes they didn’t show up all. On another occasion the visit was shortened due to the intoxication of both parents.

Other visits went really well making the separation that much more difficult for the children. [ 13 ] It is important to remember that the intervention in respect of the children and their parents must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation by which the security and development of the children are in danger. [ 14 ] The Court has no doubt that both parents love their children and that they want to be with them. However, they must acknowledge that alcohol abuse in the circumstances previously described leads to obvious lack of supervision of two very young children.

The father must definitely address his binge drinking. The mother must be ready to take the necessary steps to protect her children. [ 15 ] The Court is not convinced that the length of the measure requested by the Director of Youth Protection is necessary to achieve the above-mentioned goal of the law. The Court considers that a placement in a foster family for a period of five months is in the best interest of the children. It is sufficiently long to allow the parents to address their problematic issues and takes into consideration that such a period represents a long time in the lives of these young children.

In that regard, the Court encourages the parents to keep regular contacts with both children in order to preserve the existing bond. [ 16 ] Lastly, the Court wishes to underline that there is hope since both parents have parental capacities. Therefore, it is up to them, with the help and constant encouragement of the D.Y.P. to act in a timely matter. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS partially the petition; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2007 and Y, born on […], 2009, are in danger under

section 38(b)(2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 20 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family for a period of five months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the children be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to the frequency and modalities, following a

schedule agreed between all parties and that they occur as often as possible; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents for a period of one year; [ 23 ] ORDERS that both parents be evaluated for their alcohol consumption and participate in a follow-up if judged necessary by the professional for as long as required; [ 24 ] ORDERS that both parents undertake not to consume in the presence of the children; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their children's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells

Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Denis Trottier Legal Aid A Lawyer for the children Date of hearing: April 5, 2011