2011 QCCQ 7617, 2011 QCCQ 7617

Protection de la jeunesse — 111996 2011 QCCQ 7617 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth Division” DATE: May 18, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: Nos°: 640-41-001309-100 X 2005-[…] 640-41-001310-108 Y 2007-[…] [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of city A, Quebec, district A Applicant And A, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec , district of A Mother And MR.

B, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district of A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JL2340 JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91 Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) [ 1 ] [The social worker 1], delegate to the Director of Youth Protection of A Board of Health and Social Services of city A, is submitting two petitions to declare that the security and development of X, 5 ½ years old, and Y, 3 ½ years old, are in danger with regard to

section 38 (

b) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present, not represented. The mother is present the first two days, November 18, 2010 and February 15, 2011, but absent on April 8, 2011. She is represented by Me Angela Tommasel. The children are represented by Me Julie Auger and Me Robert-André Adam represents the applicant. [ 3 ] On the first day of hearing, the Court had sufficient evidence to declare endangered the security and development of the children.

On applicable measures, the Court received the parents' consent to participate in a psychological assessment. [ 4 ] Consequently, the inquiry was postponed to February 15, 2011. On that date, no assessment had been completed.

There was no motive to justify it, except that the Social Worker had not taken responsibility for such assessment to be provided to the parties and had not reported on it to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 5 ] Denouncing a severe lack of ethics and a lack of respect for the Court, the Tribunal had to postpone the case in April, giving the Director of Youth Protection another delay to fulfill the Court's request.

[ 6 ] On April 8, the Social Worker filed the psychological reports and was in a position to make recommendations, although she was still confused with the Court's duties, under the Youth Protection Act and under the Superior Court in family matters such as custody. [ 7 ] The security and development of the children are declared endangered because of the parent's negligence and psychological ill treatment of the children (section 38 (

b) and (

c) Y.P.A. ). [ 8 ] Since 2007, the parents have been separated and in open conflict regarding the custody of the children. They often fight and accuse each other of being unfit in front of the children. [ 9 ] On August 11, 2010, after a fight, the mother left the two children to the Youth Protection Office, stating that she was overwhelmed, stressed out and needed a break from her kids. [ 10 ] On September 1, 2010, the father came to the Director of Youth Protection to request the placement of the children because he had been kicked out of his mother's house.

His mother kicked him out because she accused him of bootlegging alcohol from her house. [ 11 ] On September 12, 2010, the mother left the children without supervision while she was out drinking. The children walked to the neighbour's house by themselves, they were hungry and not properly clothed. [ 12 ] Such events prove the immaturity of the parents and their incapacity to meet the children's needs. [ 13 ] Social assessments were filed but in her recommendations, the Social Worker was unable to evaluate which parent has sufficient parental capacities to assume the children.

She recommends the children's placement until the legal custody is awarded. [ 14 ] Because such recommendation is illegal under the Youth Protection Act, the Court asked the parents' consent to submit to a psychological assessment. [ 15 ] Such assessment of the father was performed by Dr. Joseph Beltempo on March 20, 2011, but it was impossible to complete the assessment of the mother because she did not show up for the appointments. [ 16 ] In his conclusions concerning the father, Dr. Beltempo indicated that Mr. B has a tendency to present himself in a positive light and to deny any faults. Mr.

B is psychologically intact. He has been sober from drugs and alcohol for the last six months. He is able to function adequately in society, although his sobriety is fragile. He may have some anger issues and problems with authority, for which therapy would be beneficial. [ 17 ] As mentioned previously, the mother did not meet with the psychologist. The Social Worker reports that the mother still overreacts to the separation.

Further, although she got involved in the past in both anger management and alcohol and drug treatment, the mother relapsed. [ 18 ] The mother would certainly benefit from psychotherapy and would, doing so, develop maturity and empathy. At the present point, she does not seem concerned with the children's feelings. When she talks to them over the phone, she always makes them promises she does not respect. The children are quite vulnerable and react to these promises.

For the foster parents, the grandparents, it makes it more difficult to intervene with the children. [ 19 ] Considering the evidence and the father's agreement to collaborate with the Social Worker and to attend psychotherapy, [ 20 ] Considering the children's interest, [ 21 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are in danger; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the children to the father, Mr.

B; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to attend a psychotherapy for the duration set by the psychologist; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the mother’s visits, access and contacts with the children (limits the mother’s phone calls to the children to two per week) and ORDERS that a calendar of visits be prepared and given to the mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of nine months; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to always be sober in the presence of the children; [ 28 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present Court order; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment.

__________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the applicant Me Angela Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Julie Auger, attorney for the children Dates of hearing: November 18, 2010 February 15, 2011 April 8, 2011