2021 QCCQ 17046, 2021 QCCQ 17046

Protection de la jeunesse — 217545 2021 QCCQ 17046 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001974-168 640-01-001973-160 DATE: October 6, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X born on [...], 2008 Y born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in […]; 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 and extend a decision rendered by Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q. on December 18, 2020 regarding the youth X , born on [...], 2008, and the child Y , born on [...], 2009. [ 2 ] On that date the Court declared the security and development of the children still in danger and entrusted them to a foster family until June 30, 2021. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the current situation does not allow the return of the children to their parents and that the placement must therefore be extended. [ 4 ] Indeed, the DYP allege that since the last Court order, the parents’ situation has remained the same.

They are still struggling with conjugal violence issues and with substance abuse issues. Furthermore, the father was incarcerated during the last measure. [ 5 ] Therefore, considering that the maximum periods of placement have been reached for the children, the DYP asks the Court to entrust the children to the foster family of Ms. C until the age majority. Position of the parties [ 6 ] The mother is absent, but she is represented. Through her counsel, she admits all the factual allegations of the DYP and agrees with the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The father, also, is absent, but he is represented.

He generally recognizes, through the comments of his counsel, that the situation requires the Court’s intervention and he agrees with the measures proposed to the Court by the DYP. [ 8 ] The children are present at the DYP offices and they are represented. Their counsel made factual admissions that differed, depending of the child. [ 9 ] Counsel for the children submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in their best interest and that both children agree

with them. Facts [ 10 ] The DYP has been involved in the children’s life for a long time. [ 11 ] Indeed, in the past, the children were subjected to inappropriate parental capacities, psychological ill treatment, and they were exposed to alcohol abuse, poor supervision and physical abuse on the part of the father. [ 12 ] In December 18, 2020, Lucille Beauchemin J.C.Q. declared that the security and development of the children were still in danger end entrusted them to the foster family they are still living with today, namely, the family of Ms.

C. [ 13 ] Since the last measure was ordered, the parents’ situation has remained the same. They are still struggling with many issues that prevent them from being able to care for their children. At the time of the hearing, the father was detained. [ 14 ] The maximum periods of placement have been reached for the children. Therefore, the DYP, as a permanency plan, proposed that the children be entrusted to Ms. C until they reach the age of majority. [ 15 ] The parents and both children agree with this proposition. [ 16 ] The children say that they are very happy with Ms. C and Ms.

C is willing to care for them until they become of full age. [ 17 ] According to Ms. C, they both behave well with her at home and they are doing well in school. Furthermore, the two (2) girls are also happy to be living together. [ 18 ] As stated earlier, the mother agrees with the measures. She is still struggling with an alcohol addiction and according to the DYP report, she do not hide her consumption and she admits that she buys a case of beer almost every day. [ 19 ] As for the father, he still displays an alcohol and drugs addiction problem and furthermore, when he consumes, he becomes violent.

Indeed, he was arrested for conjugal violence on June 2020 and according to the report made in May 17, 2021, he was about to be released from that period of detention. That being said, on October 6, 2021, at the time of the hearing, the father was still detained. [ 20 ] It is clear from the evidence that the parents are still involved in a dynamic of conjugal violence. It is reported that when the father is out of town, the mother collaborates well with the DYP.

That is the case at the time of this hearing because the father is detained. analysis [ 21 ] After considering all the evidence, the Court concludes, like all the other parties involved, that it is in X and Y’s best interest to be intrusted to Ms. C, with whom they are already living. [ 22 ] Since the maximum periods of placement have been reached, it is also in the children’s best interest that the placement be until they both reach their respective ages of majority.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on December 18, 2020; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family, namely the family of Ms. C; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 29 ] ORDERS that contacts between the children and the parents be determined by the Director as to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the children’s family; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] ORDERS the enforcement of this judgment by any peace officer, if needed; [ 33 ] The whole until […], 2027, for Y; [ 34 ] The whole until […], 2026, for X.

__________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Mtre Justine Carli, counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Cassandra Neptune, counsel for the child Mtre Angele Tommasel, counsel for the mother Mtre Michael Pereira, counsel for the father Date of hearing: October 6, 2021