2017 QCCQ 18485, 2017 QCCQ 18485

Protection de la jeunesse — 178911 2017 QCCQ 18485 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000209-173 DATE: November 22, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 91 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection of A (the Director) seizes the Court with a motion in revision of the judgment rendered on May 23, 2017 by Honourable judge Lucille Chabot, concerning the situation of X, 19 months old and Y, 3 years old. [ 2 ] The applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], asks for the children’s placement in foster family until their majority. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are present, represented by Me Michel Grenier and Me Marie-Josée Ayoub.

Me Yan Massé represents the children and Me Adelia Ferreira, the applicant. [ 4 ] At first, the mother admits all the allegations and agrees with the recommendations. [ 5 ] The father, on his behalf, admits the majority of the allegations and agrees partially with the recommendations. He wants to keep all his parental authority on the children. [ 6 ] To complete such evidence, the social worker testifies and files her revision report. The foster parents, Mrs. C and Mrs.

D, testify also. [ 7 ] It is proved that the father attended a six weeks program in detox, but since his return in the community he relapsed. [ 8 ] The mother also attended a six weeks program in Town A but she terminated it after five days and she returned to the community. She was not ready to complete the therapy. She tried a second time at Town B in District A on July 30, 2017, but terminated it on August 2, 2017.

She expressed that she was pregnant and felt she could not proceed. [ 9 ] Because she prematurely terminates two different programs, she could not attend another treatment program for a period of six months. [ 10 ] Even if the parents were encouraged to take steps and use services, they did not do it. They did not continue their meeting with the NADAPP worker and they did not attend all the meetings with the social worker.

[ 11 ] The parents were not consistent in the visits of the children. Their relationships remain volatile. They still drink and they do not have a secure home for themselves. They are now living separated. [ 12 ] The Director is involved in the life of Y and X for years. X was placed with Mrs. C on July 20, 2016 and remain there since. The foster mother supervised the parent’s visits. She is ready to assume the child until her majority. X is well adapted to her and to the other child in the family, adopted traditionally. She attends daycare five days a week and evaluates positively. [ 13 ] Y lives with Mrs.

D for one and a half year. The foster mother knows the parents and meet them when they visit their child. She lives with a spouse and two other children. They spend lot of time in the bush. She wants to assume the child until her majority and so does the spouse.

They are attached to the child and want to provide all her needs. [ 14 ] Considering that the parents still have a drug and alcohol abuse problem, that they have an unstable relationship, that they do not have a stable home and that they have not attended any treatment and make significant change in their way of life, it is in the children’s interest to remain in the stable foster families where they live for more than 18 months. [ 15 ] The Court considers the parents’ agreement with the measures.

Concerning the withdrawal of parental authority, the evidence do not reveal that the Director had difficulties in the past to reach the parents. Consequently, this request is dismissed. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2016 are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in the foster family of Mrs.

C until her majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director to supervise the contacts and the visits of the parents with their child for the frequency and duration, and fixes the minimum visits at two per month; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child, the parents and the foster parents until the majority of the child; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the social worker and meet with the worker upon request; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Yan Massé Attorney for the child Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 8, 2017