2019 QCCQ 19749, 2019 QCCQ 19749

Protection de la jeunesse — 198144 2019 QCCQ 19749 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 000923-182 DATE: September 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2015 child and A mother and B interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on September 24, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the Honourable Peggy Warolin on January 15, 2019. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain placed in a foster family and that support measures be ordered until March 20, 2020. [ 4 ] The mother and Mr.

B were duly notified of the Court hearing but decided not to present themselves. [ 5 ] The child’s attorney is agreeing with the Director’s plan and is recommending certain added measures. Question in litigation [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and Analysis [ 7 ] The child has been attending daycare on a regular basis. When the mother and Mr.

B are sober, they are providing good care for the child. [ 8 ] Even if it was impossible for the Youth Protection worker to arrange a calendar of visits between the child and the mother, they still see each other on a regular basis without authorization from the Director. [ 9 ] Despite the conditions imposed by the Court on January 15, 2019, Mr. B consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication while caring for the child, on several occasions. [ 10 ] On February 14, 2019, contrary to the Court imposed conditions, the mother and Mr. B were together, in the child’s presence. The mother was intoxicated.

When the Youth Protection worker asked her to leave, the mother refused and became aggressive. Police

intervention was requested. [ 11 ] On February 25, 2019, while she was intoxicated, the mother came to Mr. B’s residence. He reported that she tried to leave with the baby. [ 12 ] On February 28, 2019, Mr. B requested police intervention to have the mother escorted out of the house. She was intoxicated and it was reported that the child was afraid of her. [ 13 ] On March 18, 2019, the Director received information that the mother was intoxicated while she was caring for the child. [ 14 ] On April 24, 2019, police intervention was requested with regard to a noise complaint.

When the police arrived at the family house, they found Mr. B highly intoxicated by alcohol. The mother and the child were present in the house. The mother was sober. Mr. B was eventually arrested for causing disturbances. [ 15 ] On May 20, 2019, immediate protective measures had to be invoked. Mr. B was highly intoxicated while caring for the child. The child was entrusted for 48 hours to a relative. [ 16 ] On June 21, 2019, Mr. B was observed highly intoxicated while caring for the child.

The child was placed in a foster family for the night. [ 17 ] On July 1, 2019, police informed the Youth Protection worker that Ms. C had to come pick up and care for the child as Mr. B was highly intoxicated. [ 18 ] On July 31, 2019, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in a foster family. [ 19 ] In her January 15, 2019 order, Justice Warolin presented the mother’s position in these words: The mother wants to receive help and does not want her daughter entrusted to a foster family. She is conscious that the reason for the DYP intervention is her alcohol consumption.

She wants to address her issues and to keep her daughter or to be able to have her back after her therapy. According to her, too many children are placed under the YPA and she does not want that (to happen) to her daughter. [1] [ 20 ] Contrary to her undertaking mentioned during the January 15, 2019 Court hearing, the mother has not taken steps at Portage to seek help for her consumption issues. She reported that she had several medical appointments and did not want to be away from the community for a longer period. She plans to seek help from the Social Services when she will be back from surgery.

She has not sought support services yet. [ 21 ] Mr. B does not recognize that his alcohol consumption is problematic. He even mentioned not drinking any alcohol because of his religion. The Tribunal is informed that he went for two or three appointments with Social Services. [ 22 ] Despite their undertaking, the child has continued to be exposed to excessive alcohol consumption by the mother and Mr. B. The child is only 3 years old and remains vulnerable. She counts on the adults caring for her to ensure that all her needs are met.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 25 ] REVISES the order rendered on January 15, 2019; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of their current situations; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B refrain from engaging in any form of violence or aggression in the presence of the child; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and Mr.

B seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol abuse and personal issues; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the Mr. B’s and the mother’s presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, her mother and Mr. B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 34 ] ORDERS that if a reintegration occurs, in accordance with

article 62 of the Youth Protection Act , that unannounced visits happen and that an external educator be appointed;

[ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE until March 20, 2020; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on October 31, 2019 /cd Mtre Geneviève Apollon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Caroline Jennis Counsel for the child Mtre Nada Boumeftah Counsel for the mother Mtre Angèle Tommassel Counsel for Mr. B, interested party Date of hearing: September 24, 2019