2019 QCCQ 10619, 2019 QCCQ 10619

Protection de la jeunesse — 191451 2019 QCCQ 10619 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 615-41-002471-190 DATE: March 29, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE THIERRY R. POTVIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et services sociaux A APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2018. CHILD and MRS A MOTHER and MR B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 38 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 present document constitutes the written version of the Court’s decision rendered orally at the hearing. [ 2 ] The Court is seized with a motion for protection pursuant to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection (Director), to have the security or development of the child X, born on [...] 2018, declared in danger. [ 3 ] At the outset of the hearing, the father is absent and not represented by council despite being duly notified of the present hearing. [ 4 ] The mother is also absent during the hearing despite the fact that she was present at the courthouse during the morning. She was represented by a legal aid lawyer who was authorised to seize to represent her since she had left the courthouse and did not come back.

The lawyer did not feel he had a clear mandate to represent her anymore. [ 5 ] The child is represented by council on a legal mandate in view of her young age. [ 6 ] The Director files the social study into evidence. [ 7 ] The unchallenged evidence shows that the parents suffer from drugs and alcohol addiction. In fact, it is alleged that both parents have been intoxicated while in the presence of the child. [ 8 ] The father confirmed that, on a few occasions, he has been in charge of the child while he was intoxicated.

In fact, the father has been known to have alcohol issues for several years now, but refuses to consider his addiction as a problem. [ 9 ] He admits drinking 2 beers and smoking cannabis every day. [ 10 ] It is alleged that the father becomes more impulsive and violent when he is under the influence of alcohol. [ 11 ] To this day, he refuses to undertake a substance abuse evaluation. [ 12 ] The mother suffers from mental illness and is the subject of a schizoaffective disorder diagnostic.

She does not take her medication as prescribed and is not assiduous in her follow up. [ 13 ] For example the mother failed to present herself at an appointment with the psychiatrist on February 21 st because she was

sleeping. [ 14 ] She also drinks alcohol twice a week while smoking cannabis every day and admits to consuming “speeds” from time to time. She mentions to the Director that she drinks outside the house, but comes back intoxicated at the house in presence of the child. [ 15 ] In September 2018, the mother attempted to commit suicide after an episode of violence with the father. [ 16 ] The police have been called on several occasions concerning allegations of domestic violence in presence of the child. On one occasion, during a dispute, the mother tried to hit the father while he had the child in his arms.

The mother then accidently hit the child on her forehead. [ 17 ] It is also reported that the child had no proper winter clothing and no adequate clothing for her size and age. [ 18 ] The child is extremely vulnerable as she depends on adults to meet all her needs.

She is in good health but was diagnosed with positional plagiocephaly which needs to be revaluated soon by a specialist. [ 19 ] On January 22 nd the child was entrusted to a foster family as immediate protective measure after a police intervention for domestic violence. [ 20 ] On January 23 rd , a provisional agreement was reached between the parents and the Director. [ 21 ] On February 12 th , provisional measures were imposed by the Court ordering that the child be entrusted to a foster family and that the contacts with the parents be supervised. [ 22 ] It is reported that during the placement of the child on January 24 th , the father was authorized to stay with the foster family and the child.

During the weekend, the mother of the foster family had to intervene since the father was shouting at the child because she was crying. [ 23 ] After the provisional measures hearing on February 12 th , the child was entrusted to another foster family which lives only a few block away from the parents. Despite this proximity, the parents only visited the child once in two weeks. ANALYSIS [ 24 ] The unchallenged evidence leads the court to declare the security or development of the child to be in danger under subsection 38 b) 1 o

i) neglect for the child’s basic needs, 38 b) 2 o serious risk of neglect, 38

c) psychological ill-treatment and 38 e) 2 o serious risk of being victim of bodily injury. [ 25 ] Since the child is in a state of high vulnerability and since the parents cannot meet the basic needs of the child because of their addictions and mental health issues, there are no other alternatives than to entrust her to a foster family for a period of 12 months. The lawyer of the child agree with the assessment of the Director. [ 26 ] During that time, the parents will have to address their many issues.

The father will need to address his drug and alcohol addictions and the mother will also have to become more compliant with her mental health treatment program. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES the security and development of X, born on [...] 2018, to be in danger under subsections b)1 o i); b) 2 o ; c); and e) 2 o of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to C as foster family for a period of 12 months insofar as the family receives accreditation as proximity foster family with possible progressive reintegration in her family after nine months; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be supervised by the Director as to the frequency or modalities and the presence of a third party if necessary; [ 32 ] RECOMMANDS that the parents undergo an evaluation for substance abuse and to undergo a follow up if recommended by the professional; [ 33 ] RECOMMANDS that the mother participate actively to her mental health follow up and follow any recommendation dispensed by the professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receive all specific health care and health services required; [ 35 ] ORDERS the parents to report to the Director at regular intervals to inform him of the current situation; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between professionals dispensing services to the child and her parents and the Director regarding the collaboration, the presence in the meetings and the recommendations;

[ 37 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober while in the presence of the child; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the social follow-up and inform the social worker concerning their progress in ending the situation of endangerment. __________________________________ THIERRY R. POTVIN, J.C.Q. Me Agnès Sabourin Zaccardelli CISSS-A Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Attorneys for the applicant Me Noémie Marcoux-Roy Bigué Avocats – Town A Attorney for the child Mrs A Mother, not represented Mr B Father, not represented Date of hearing: March 13, 2019