2012 QCCQ 8763, 2012 QCCQ 8763

Protection de la jeunesse — 122481 2012 QCCQ 8763 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001403-119, 640-41-001404-117 & 640-41-001405-114 DATE: March 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SOCIAL WORKER 1, Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, Y & Z, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection asks for the review of an order under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born[…], 2008, Y, born […] , 2000 and Z, born […] , 1997. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother was present and represented by her lawyer. All three children were represented by their lawyer. As for the father, he was absent although duly served and notified. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On October 11, 2011, Grégoire J. ordered the implementation of measures included in a draft agreement by which all parties admitted that the security and development of all children were endangered due to the parents problems with alcohol.

Considering the apparent willingness of the parents to change their way of life, the children were maintained with them.

The parents were specifically ordered to address their alcohol problem and report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in order to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of the children. [ 4 ] The evidence shows that the parents did not follow the above-mentioned measures aimed at helping them address their issues with alcohol in order to recover their parental roles. [ 5 ] Barely a month after Grégoire's J. order, the Youth Protection worker found both parents at their dwelling highly intoxicated.

Immediate protective measures were taken as the children were entrusted to the maternal grandmother. A meeting with the parents was later scheduled. However, they did not show up. A similar situation occurred again a few weeks later forcing Y to bring his sister to his grandmother's house. This led to a provisional foster care measure order on December 22, 2011. The children are now living with the maternal aunt and it is reported that Y and X are doing well.

Z is considered more independent as he returns home regularly choosing to leave when he is uncomfortable with his parents' drinking. [ 6 ] The evidence constitutes new facts according to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act and commands the review of the previous order. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks that X and Y be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months and that Z be

entrusted to his parents. [ 8 ] During the hearing, the mother recognizes her need for help in regards of her excessive consumption of alcohol and states she is willing to address her problem through social services. The children wish they could be reunited immediately with their parents. [ 9 ] In the present context, the Court is convinced that the evidence supports a foster care measure for Y and X. As for Z, the applicant's recommendation is aimed at avoiding further turmoil by forcing the youth to live in a foster family considering he can protect himself by leaving the family dwelling when there is drinking.

The evidence also reveals that Z is very withdrawn as it is difficult for him to open up and to express his feelings. Also noteworthy is the fact that he hasn't been attending school for several months now. This did not seem to be a major concern for the applicant, as it was not mentioned in the social report. The information was uncovered following the Court's questions. [ 10 ] The only way Z's stay in a foster family can be avoided is if the mother is willing to monitor her son's whereabouts, notably at school and agree for respite and planed periods in a foster family when the father or her intend to drink.

At the present time, the Court is of the opinion that a continuous placement of Z in a foster family entails adjustments to a new environment which will only be more harmful as he is less vulnerable than his brother and sister. [ 11 ] The mother is part of the problem and she must be part of the solution.

She has to realize that the work ahead is considerable as she must seek help for her alcohol addiction and be present on a daily basis for Z. [ 12 ] The applicant will have to investigate and cooperate with school personnel in order to monitor closely Z's school attendance. [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 15 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […], 2008, Y, born […] , 2000 and Z, born […] , 1997, are still endangered; [ 16 ] ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months with reintegration with the mother in the last two months of the placement if the situation allows it; [ 17 ] ORDERS that Z be entrusted to his mother with respite periods in a foster home, up to one week at a time, provided the mother advises the D.Y.P. in advance of the need for such a respite period; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents play an active

part in the application of any measure ordered by the Court; [ 19 ] ORDERS that both parents seek help regarding their alcohol problem and that they remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents for a period of nine months; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES a Youth Protection worker to make announced visits at the parents dwelling; [ 22 ] ORDERS that Y and Z attend school on a regular basis; [ 23 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the children situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: February 14, 2012