2017 QCCQ 11819, 2017 QCCQ 11819

Protection de la jeunesse — 175106 2017 QCCQ 11819 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 614-41-000019-150 614-41-000021-156 DATE: August 22, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2013 Y, born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, district A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City B, district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City B, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 95 of the Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. 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 A asks the Court to review and to extend the decisions rendered on December 6, 2016, concerning the children X, 3 ½ years old and Y, 6 years old.

The applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] asks for their placement in the foster home of their paternal grandparents until their majority. [ 2 ] The Court proceed by common inquiry. At the hearing, the mother present by visio is assisted by Me Marie-Josée Ayoub. The father absent is represented by Me Michel Grenier. The children are represented by Me Yan Massé and Me Camille Champeval assists the applicant. [ 3 ] The mother admits most of the allegations. She agrees with the extension of the children placement but only for a year. The absent father, by his lawyer, consent to the measures.

The evidence is completed by the testimonies of the social worker and the grandmother, and the revision report. [ 4 ] The children were placed in the foster home of their paternal grandparents since June 1, 2015. At the time, the parents were not collaborating with the social worker as they accepted in the voluntary measures signed on June 14, 2014. They were still drinking abusively, were not keeping a safe and clean environments for their children. The conjugal relation was unstable and the children were left alone with the father who was homeless.

The children were placed with their grandparents for six months. [ 5 ] Since that time, the children remain with their paternal grandparents and the parent’s situation deteriorated. The mother consumed alcohol and cocaine during a pregnancy. The father also consumed alcohol and was aggressive towards the mother when she delivered a baby girl. The mother went in treatment on November 2015, two months after her delivery, but she relapsed on December 28, 2015. The father did not complete any treatment program. [ 6 ] They still have an unstable relationship.

They continue to drink on a regular basis. [ 7 ] The mother and the father are impulsive and violent when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. [ 8 ] They did not collaborate with the social worker. The last time Mrs. [Social Worker 1] met them, it was in court last December for the revision. The mother contacted them last week for the new revision asked. She informed the applicant she was serving time for a crime of violence (assault) and she was homeless.

[ 9 ] The father had few contacts with the social worker Mrs. [Social Worker 1] and he is homeless. [ 10 ] Both parents visited their children irregularly under the supervision of one of the grandparents. [ 11 ] The children are doing well in their foster home. X will attends prekindergarten in August 2017 and Y completed his kindergarten. [ 12 ] The grandparents are ready to assume their grandchildren on a long time basis. They are able to ensure that all their needs are met and to provide them a secure, stable and caring home.

They have a significant relation with the children who identified them as their parents. [ 13 ] The mother did not testify in support of her position, placement in foster home for only one year. [ 14 ] The legislator, in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , fix the maximum duration of placement for children [1] : 91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 15 ] Such delays (18 months placement for X and 24 months placement for

Y) are over and the mother does not provide evidence that she could be able to assume the children in a short delay. The situation is the same or deteriorated since 2015. The father agrees with such delays of placement. FURTHERMORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2013 and Y, born on [...], 2011, are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in the foster family of Mrs. C and Mr.

D until their age of majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the contacts and accesses of the parents with the children; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parents to be always sober in presence of the children; [ 21 ] WITHDRAWS some attributes of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all the consent for medical, educational, recreational and travel purposes, including obtaining a passport; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children, the parents and the foster parents until the children majority; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Yan Massé

Attorney for the children Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the mother Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: July 5, 2017