2021 QCCQ 15270, 2021 QCCQ 15270

Protection de la jeunesse — 218766 2021 QCCQ 15270 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000668-159 DATE: September 20, 2021 (written judgment rendered on November 26, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on October 30, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2008. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until September 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the adolescent to her parents and that the placement to the foster family of her paternal grandparents Ms. C and Mr.

D, has to be prolonged until her majority. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother lives in Town A, but her whereabouts are unknown since a long time. The DYP worker was able to speak with her during the week previous the Court and the mother said that she would come. She was supposed to take the plane the day before the hearing, but finally she did not travel. Since then, the DYP worker tries to reach her without success. Her family members also ignore where she is.

Considering the steps taken by the DYP to insure the mother’s presence and considering the best interest of the child, the Court proceed in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] The father is also absent and not represented. For the same reason, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Sinnett. She admits all the facts, recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] X has a brother, Y (15 years). The Court is also seized with his situation.

History of the Situation [ 7 ] On August 20, 2015 , the Court was seized with the situation of the children. Their situation was known by the DYP since July 2013. The parents had signed voluntary measures in which the mother recognized her alcohol consumption issues, her aggressiveness and her unstable life. The father was not really involved in the children’s lives. The paternal grandparents were the main caregiver for the children. On voluntary measures, the children were officially entrusted to them. The children were doing well at their grandparents, and the parents had regular contacts with their children.

The Court declared the security and development endangered, entrusted the children to their grandparents and recommended clarifying the life plan for them considering the delay of placement, the whole until February 19, 2016. [ 8 ] On February 18, 2016 , the evidence showed that the parents were able to improve their situation. They had a third child, they stopped drinking except for the father, but he consumes outside the house, and there was no more conjugal violence. The contacts went very well.

The Court entrusted the children to their grandparents with a progressive reintegration under their parents’ care as soon as

possible, the whole until February 27, 2017. [ 9 ] On March 1, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. A reintegration was tried in August 2016, but lasted only one week. The father had to bring back the children at the grandparents’ due to the mother’s intoxication. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family knowing that they would be fostered by the grandparents, the whole until August 31, 2017. [ 10 ] On August 17, 2017 , the evidence shows that the parents’ situation remained the same (alcohol consumption, conjugal violence and not seeking help). The family had a fourth child.

The children were doing well at their grandparents’ place. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family and recommended that it be the one of the grandparents, the whole May 25, 2018. [ 11 ] On August 20, 2018 , the parents’ situation remained the same. The children were doing well at their grandparents’ place. The 2 youngest children of the family had to be placed down South, the parents regularly went to Town A to see them and for the medical needs of one of them. They continued to have regular contacts with Y and X. The parents did not collaborate with the DYP and did not seek help for their issues.

The parents would be separated, and the mother would have moved to Town B. Considering the parents had easily access to their children, they did not see the emergency of mobilized themselves. The Court entrusted the children under their grandparents’ care and authorized the integration under strict conditions, the whole until June 6, 2019. [ 12 ] On June 13, 2019 , the Court noted that the parents were able to mobilize themselves to improve their situation. They reduced their alcohol intake, they had a few meetings with the Social Services and they were more involved in the follow-up with the DYP.

The contacts with the children were very frequent and regular and nothing wrong was raised. The grandparents committed to remain involved in the children’s situation if they return to their parents’ place. The Court maintained the children with the parents with different services until December 31, 2019. [ 13 ] On December 13, 2019 , the Court entrusted the children to their grandparents under provisional measures. [ 14 ] On January 28, 2020 , the evidence showed that the children continued to be regularly at their grandparents’ place.

The parents relapsed with their alcohol consumption, and an event of conjugal violence occurred. Y started to have problems with his school attendance and behavioural issues. He was suspended from school. Y was doing well as soon as he returned under his grandparents’. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family knowing that it would be the one of the grandparents and ordered that the family receive the services of an external educator, the whole until October 31, 2020. [ 15 ] On October 30, 2020 , the Court revised the situation again. The children asked to remain entrusted to their grandparents.

The parents recognized not being in a position to take care of their children immediately. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family knowing that it would be the one of the grandparents, until September 30, 2021. Facts and Analysis [ 16 ] X remains with her paternal grandparents since the last decision. She also lives with her brother, aunts, uncles and cousins. Both grandparents work at school. X attends school regularly and performs very well. She is in Secondary 2 in the English program. [ 17 ] The parents are separated since January 2020. The father still resides in Town C in his own house.

He is unemployed and he has financial difficulty which put him at risk to be evicted from his house. The grandparents help him financially to avoid such eviction and with food. [ 18 ] The father was able to reduce his alcohol consumption since the last decision. He attends meetings with the Justice Committee. In May 2021, the father spoke about registering to an online program Healing Treatment Center A, but he did not take the steps to be admitted. [ 19 ] On her side, the mother moved a lot between Town D, Town B, Town C and lastly, in Town A.

She did not inform the DYP about her intention to come back in the [Region A] or not. [ 20 ] Since the last decision, the mother spoke about attending treatment, but as the father, she took no steps to do so. She mentioned to the DYP worker that she had reduced her alcohol consumption. Recently, she mentioned her desire to attend the healing centre in Town B and to be in communication with a worker in charge of the program. [ 21 ] Both parents offer a good collaboration with the DYP when they are reached which is very difficult on the mother’s side.

During the last conversation with the mother, she said agree with the placement at the grandparents’ place, but not until the majority. She keeps hoping to be able to resume the care of her children. The father confirmed his agreement with the long-term placement. [ 22 ] The situation of the youth remains endangered. The parents recognize their difficulty which prevents them from being able to care for their children.

Without professional helps, the parents were able to reduce their alcohol consumption, but not to resolve these issues and they are both facing a lot of instability. [ 23 ] The parents agree with the placement. Only the mother contests the duration. In this situation, the maximum delays of placements established by the law are reached. The parents are not in a position currently nor in a middle term, to resume their children’s care.

They have no concrete plan to address their issues and doing so, it is impossible to know if they will participate or succeed and how they will be able to stabilize their life. [ 24 ] The plan suggested by the DYP fulfill the child’s needs and, moreover, the youth asks for such placement. The grandmother testified about her willingness to care for her grandchildren and about her capacity to do so. The Court has no hesitation to entrust the children under the grandparents’ care until they reach their majority. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2008, are still endangered; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a foster family, namely to her paternal grandparents Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attends school on a regular basis; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the parents report in person at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from any kind of violence in the adolescent’s presence; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services, or another resource deemed appropriate for their substance abuse, personal and marital issues; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES that the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement with the services provided; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the modalities, duration and frequency of the contacts between the adolescent and the father be encouraged and determined upon agreement between all parties, and in the absence of an agreement, that the contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including degree of supervision; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the modalities, duration, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the adolescent and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS that those contacts to be encouraged as long as the parents remain sober; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the adolescent and her siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2026. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly-Ann Sinnett, attorney for the child Date of hearing: September 20, 2021