2012 QCCQ 19270, 2012 QCCQ 19270

Protection de la jeunesse — 128405 2012 QCCQ 19270 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY A Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004344-126 DATE: November 19, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...], 2012 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the child X. The motion alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a serious risk of neglect. [ 2 ] As well as measures of aid and counsel for 6 months, the Director seeks the placement of the child in foster care and the supervision of her contacts with the parents.

There is also a submission to withdraw certain attributes of parental authority (medical authorizations), in the event the parents are unreachable. [ 3 ] The parties consign their position as to the allegations of the motion in the Court record.

The parents don't contest the measures at this juncture, but cite their intention to seek a revision of the measures, in function to the evolution of the situation. [ 4 ] The attorney for the child agrees with the measures, but suggests that it is premature to withdraw parental authority. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] The parents have two children, Y, born on […] 2011, and X, born on [...], 2012. [ 7 ] Y is entrusted to foster care since April 2012, in reason of a situation of serious risk of negligence as to her basic needs, and psychological ill-treatment stemming from parental conflicts.

The parents have not sought contacts with their daughter since May 2012, despite being authorized such. [ 8 ] Elements of conjugal violence, drug issues and instability punctuate the parents relationship.

Their parental capacities are problematic, resulting in deficiencies as to routine, hygiene as well as attendance to medical and social follow-ups. [ 9 ] The parents affirm that since Y's placement, there has been no drug consumption, nor conjugal violence. [ 10 ] X resides in foster care since October 12, 2012. [ 11 ] The parents are present for all scheduled supervised visits and demonstrate an ability to see as to his basic needs. The mother communicates regularly with the foster family to inquire on her son. [ 12 ] The parents are generally resistant to the intervention and lacking in transparency.

They circumvent requests to verify their living accommodations. Although in April they affirm their intention to undertake steps to work on their relationship, it isn't before August that they communicate with the CLSC. In October, they fail to respond to the follow-up. [ 13 ] Both parents have complex personal histories. [ 14 ] The father's drug consumption and conjugal violence justify the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection as to two of his children from a previous union.

Actually, there is a suspension of his contacts. [ 15 ] The Court concludes that despite the ongoing intervention as to their children, the parents maintain unresolved personal issues, which continue to impede their parental capacities and create a serious risk of neglect for their child. [ 16 ] As to the measures, the Court concludes that they respect the interests as well as the rights of the child. [ 17 ] The parents affirm positive intentions to deal with the situation, but their efforts up to present are inconsistent and lacking in determination.

The goal of the intervention is a return of the child to his parental milieu. This will require that the parents intensify their resolve to deal with their personal difficulties as well as collaborate closely with the Director to acquire the means to offer a safe and serene environment for their child. [ 18 ] As to the live issue of parental authority, the Court underlines that this is a fundamental right and obligation, which can only suffer restriction if the child's best interests is its justification.

Simple accommodation and facility of execution of the measures are insufficient reasons to justify such a request. [ 19 ] The evidence is to the effect that the parents are present for the scheduled access and therefore regularly available to sign any required consents for their child's needs, medical or otherwise. No evidence of specific circumstances of unavailability or unjustified refusal are brought forth.

The Court therefore dismisses the request for partial withdrawal of parental authority. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be placed in a foster family for 6 months; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in

which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents communicate with the Director of Youth Protection on a regular basis, and at least once a week; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his parents for 6 months; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 19, 2012