2015 QCCQ 19931, 2015 QCCQ 19931

Protection de la jeunesse — 157275 2015 QCCQ 19931 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000692-152 DATE: September 22, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [INTERVENEER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, residing at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Adolescent -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X, born on [...], 2012, declared endangered due to a serious risk of neglect as defined at subparagraph 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act and also because he is victim of parental neglect following subparagraphs 38 (b) (1)(

i) and 38 (b) (1)(iii) Y.P.A. [ 2 ] Due to the young age of the child, his lawyer has no mandate in regards of admissions. The father died around a year ago. Although the mother was duly served, she is absent. On the date the hearing was first set, the mother had called the court house explaining she had no means of transportation to come to court. The hearing was remanded, among others reasons, to allow the mother to be present. A new notice of presentation was served to her and the applicant made many attempts in two different communities in order to get a hold of the mother, to no avail.

The information gathered by the applicant was to the effect that the mother chose not to be present at the hearing. The Court decided it was on the child’s best interest to proceed in the absence of the mother. THE FACTS [ 3 ] As previously mentioned, X’s father passed away about a year ago. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection became involved with the family following a report in February 2015 concerning a serious risk of neglect because of the mother’s addiction to drugs and alcohol. The report also referred to a situation of neglect due to poor parental supervision.

Accordingly, the child was the object of agreements on voluntary measures, one that provided that the child remained with the mother and another in April 2015, by which he was entrusted to his paternal uncle and his common law wife. [ 5 ] Due to her addiction to alcohol, it is shown that the mother isn’t able to take care of her child. The applicant’s visits to the mother’s house clearly shows an idle lifestyle that revolves around drinking and drug use. The mother isn’t able to respect many of the scheduled visits with her son.

As a result, she spent almost two months without seeing her son although the applicant offered her transportation in order to facilitate the visits. [ 6 ] Moreover, the applicant has much difficulty to get into contact with the mother and she fails to be present at scheduled meetings. Although the mother receives the services of a social worker from the first lines services in the community, she also fails to respect her meetings, rendering impossible any type of help for her substance abuse. [ 7 ] X is a two and an half toddler.

He is energetic and is developing well. [ 8 ] Given the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are endangered pursuant to subparagraph 38 (b)

(2) Y.P.A.

APPLICABLES MEASURES [ 9 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director of Youth Protection requests that child be entrusted to his paternal uncle for a period of six months. In support of her recommendation, the applicant states that the mother needs to stabilize her own life before she can care for her child. [ 10 ] The child’s lawyer believes that the Director’s recommendations are in the best interest of his young client. [ 11 ] It is obvious the mother needs treatment for her addiction to alcohol.

She must also be willing to work with the Director of Youth Protection in order to work on her parental skills. [ 12 ] The Court had the opportunity to hear the paternal uncle as well as is common law wife. It is obvious that they have the best interest of X at heart and that they are able to meet all of his needs. [ 13 ] The applicant recommendations to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of X are in danger are reasonable. It is up to the mother to act in a timely manner. The absence of the mother at the hearing is unfortunate and she must realize she has little time to take action.

X has been under the care of others for four months now. Without true commitment on her part, more permanent measures to assure the stability and security of the child will have to be put in place. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are endangered pursuant to subparagraph 38 (b)

(2) Y.P.A.; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mr C and Mrs D until January 20, 2016; [ 17 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the mother for a period of 12 months; [ 18 ] ORDERS the mother to obtain services for her alcohol addiction; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and that these contacts occur at least two hours per week; [ 20 ] TAKES NOTICE of the intent of the Director of Youth Protection to grant more contacts depending on the evolution of the mother’s situation; [ 21 ] ALLOWS the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s situation as to the evolution of the situation in general, the client-professional privilege remain for the rest; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the respect of the present judgment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Pierre Grygiel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the adolescent Date of hearing: August 27, 2015