2010 QCCQ 19521, 2010 QCCQ 19521

Protection de la jeunesse — 107503 2010 QCCQ 19521 JL3389 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 525-41-021747-092 DATE : November 30 th , 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on […] 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , in her capacity as person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth Centres A Applicant - and - A , the mother - and - B , the father (deceased) ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 91 and 95, Youth Protection Act, L.R.Q.c.P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on November 30 th 2010. [ 2 ] The Court is seized with a motion to review an order rendered on December 14 th , 2009, concerning X and his siblings . [ 3 ] Essentially, the Director of Youth Protection sustains: 3.1 Since the last court order, the child remained entrusted to Mrs.

C, his half sibling and is developing well; 3.2 In February 2010, Mrs C was recognized as a specific foster family for the child and siblings; 3.3 Mrs C is committed to taking care of the child on a long-term basis; 3.4 Mrs C's mother helps her with the child and siblings and is committed to continue on a long-term basis; 3.5 The child underwent grief counselling and art therapy from January 2010 to June 2010, regarding the death of the father; 3.6 The child passed his school year; 3.7 The child exhibits no behavioural difficulties in school or at home; 3.8 Since living with Mrs C, the child presents as more confident, happy and sociable; 3.9 The child was enrolled in an after-school program; 3.10 The child improved his language and word recognition;

3.11 Up until the moth of August 2010, the mother visited the child regularly and she showed high motivation in making the necessary to have the child back into her care; 3.12 The mother underwent a complete substance abuse treatment program and engaged in individual therapy; 3.13 In August 2010, the mother stopped visiting the child and stopped attending random drug testing; 3.14 The mother has expressed being upset with Mrs C and working too much and therefore not being able to see the child; 3.15 All random drug tests, until the mother stopped attending were negative; 3.16 The mother started working on a full-time basis in August 2010; 3.17 The mother continues to live with Mr.

D; 3.18 Concerns still exist as to the mother's boyfriend's drug consumption; 3.19 The child has reported some incidents between the mother and Mr. D when he visited the mother; 3.20 The child's sibling, Y (SIC) reported that the mother drank wine during the visits while the mother's boyfriend drank beer; 3.21 There are concerns that the mother and Mr. D have relapsed; 3.22 The child expressed he wanted to see his mother without the presence of Mr.

D; 3.23 At the present time, the mother is unable to resume care of the child; [ 4 ] With the consent of the parties, the Court proceeded to a joint hearing in the case of the child and his siblings, the conclusions being the same for each of the three (3) children. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection is recommending that the children be entrusted to Mrs C with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of one (1) year, and that measures be applied in order to correct the situation, as appears in the Court record; [ 6 ] The mother, through her attorney, admitted most of the allegations of the procedure and declared to be in agreement with the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, although she would like to have the children returned to her care. [ 7 ] The child, through his attorney, admitted most of the allegations of the procedure and declared to be in agreement with all the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 8 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the Director of Youth Protection filed the following document: D-1: Court report written by [social worker 1], dated November 3 rd , 2010; [ 9 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the mother filed the following documents: M-1: Confirmation d’emploi; M-2: Lettre du propriétaire; [ 10 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 11 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that X (9 years old) and his younger siblings were entrusted to the care of their step-sister C when their father died in August 2009.

The 3 children had previously been entrusted to the care of their father since the month of January 2009, because of the mother's personal difficulties (drug abuse and conjugal violence) which prevented her from taking proper care of them. [ 12 ] The stability and consistent caring that X and his siblings have experienced in the past year have been beneficial to them. X is said to present as a more confident, happy and sociable child with a playful sense of humour and a positive general attitude and outlook on life.

There have been steady improvements academically, and he is considered by the school principal as doing well in this respect. [ 13 ] The mother is reported to have taken steps to address her drug dependency. She completed a rehabilitation program at [the organism A] and has attended individual therapy at the [organism B]. She also accepted to submit to random drug testing until August 2010, which results proved to be negative.

However, since August, the mother has refused to submit to the requested testing and has not been as available to visit her children. [ 14 ] The mother started working full-time at supermarket A in August, and claims this to be the reason for her non-attendance at the drug testing and her lack of availability to visit the children.

The mother also has some non-resolved issues with C that keep her away from the latter's home. [ 15 ] The mother has an on-going relationship with D with whom she was involved in a violent relationship at the time the children were removed from her care, and who has a past history of drug abuse (heroin). Although the mother denies this, there are concerns that she might have relapsed in her drug/alcohol abuse. [ 16 ] The mother continues to be committed to having her children returned to her care and to take the measures required to make this happen.

[ 17 ] CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X continue to be in danger within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act. [ 20 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 21 ] ORDERS that all three (3) children remain entrusted in the specific foster home of Mrs C until June 30th, 2011; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the DYP including supervision if necessary; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother takes an active

part in the application of the measures ordered more specificaly that she submits to random drug testing; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the chlldren and their family for a period of 1 year; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that within the aid, counsel and assistance provided, the children be registered in an after school activity of their choice; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of one (1) year except for the placement period which is until the 30th of June, 2011; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth Centers A, who shall see that the measures are carried out, and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary.

SIGNED AT CITY A __________________________________ MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. M e Georgia Limperis Attorney for the applicant M e François Parizeau Attorney of the children M e François Pelletier Attorney for the mother Judgment rendered orally on November 30 th , 2010. ML/mlm