2017 QCCQ 18892, 2017 QCCQ 18892

Protection de la jeunesse — 178910 2017 QCCQ 18892 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000173-163 614-41-000174-161 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2003 Y, born on […], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 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 of A (D.Y.P.) asks the Court to revise the judgment rendered on March 30, 2017, by Honourable Judge Lucille Beauchemin, concerning the situation of X, 14 years old, and Y, 9 years old. [ 2 ] The applicant, Mrs. [social worker 1], recommends that the children remain placed in the foster home of their sister B until their majority. [ 3 ] At the hearing the father, only living parent, is absent even if he was duly served.

He is hospitalised in Quebec city, attending rehabilitation services. As he is not involved in the children’s life and did not collaborate with the social worker, and considering the lawyer’s comment, the Court accepts to proceed in his absence. [ 4 ] The oldest child is present at the hearing and both children are represented by Me Constantin Kiryakidis.

Me Camille Champeval represents the applicant. [ 5 ] The following facts are proven beyond balance of probalities. [ 6 ] In the last judgment, the children were placed with their half-sister B until August 20, 2017 and their reintegration with their father was authorised starting at the end of the school year if the father respected the judgment. [ 7 ] However, the father did not comply with the judgment. He did not collaborate with the social worker, did not engage in anger management or parenting courses.

He did not call the social worker nor did he attend the appointment scheduled. [ 8 ] Last February 25, a visit was organised between him and the children, but it did not occur. Another visit was offered to the father on April 27 and organised. Unfortunately, the father did not take the plane as scheduled. The social worker made another

schedule for transportation two days later, but the father did not travel. [ 9 ] The father would have relapsed in consumption of alcohol since the last judgment. Without authorization, he would have communicate with X through social media. Since June, he has health issues. He was medivaced to Montréal on June 20 and hospitalised until July 7. He would be now receiving rehabilitation services in Québec city. [ 10 ] The father did not see his children since February 2017.

[ 11 ] The children are taking care of by their half-sister B and they are well taken care of. They attend school regularly and Mrs. B provides them a secure, stable and caring environment. [ 12 ] Considering the evidence, the Court considers that the recommendations done by the applicant are appropriate. During the next year, the D.Y.P. will evaluate the father’s motivation to assume his children and if he has none, the D.Y.P. will elaborate a life project for the children.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X, born on […], 2003 and Y, born on […], 2008, are still in danger; [ 15 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in the foster family of their sister B for one year; [ 16 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to supervise the contacts between the children and their father as for the modalities, the frequency and the duration; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seeks help through the social services for his anger issues; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the father attends work-shop to increase his parental capacities; [ 19 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their father for one year; [ 20 ] ORDERS the father to report at regular interval to the D.Y.P. and to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Constantin Kiryakidis Attorney for the children Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Date of hearing: October 12, 2017