2010 QCCQ 19727, 2010 QCCQ 19727

Protection de la jeunesse — 107373 2010 QCCQ 19727 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Chamber »

DATE : December 23, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : N° : 640-41-001316-105 X 1995-[...] 640-41-001317-103 Y 1997-[...] [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the [Youth Centre A] of Health and Social Services of town A, Quebec, district A Applicant And A, residing and domiciled in town B, Quebec , district A Mother And B, residing and domiciled in town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JL2340 JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 91 Y.P.A. , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) [ 1 ] Mr [social worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of the [Youth Centre A] of Health and Social Services of town A, asks the Court to declare the security and development of Y, born on [...], 1997, and X, born on [...], 1995, in danger because they are neglected by their parents and their serious behavioural disturbances (section 38 (

b) and (

f) Y.P.A). [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present. The children are represented by Me Jean-Claude Latraverse. Me Robert-André Adam represents the petitioner. There is no proof of service to the father. [ 3 ] The children's lawyer admits the following allegations : 3.1. The family has a history of involvement with youth protection; 3.2. The mother displays drugs-and-alcohol-related problems; 3.3. The children have begun to display behaviour problems; 3.4. The children have been placed several times in emergency foster homes. [ 4 ] The mother admits few allegations and the social worker testifies to complete the evidence. The social services have been

present in this family since 2003 and Mr [social worker 1] has been assigned to these files since 2008. Over the years, the family's situation has been brought to the attention of the Director of Youth Protection many times, analysed and retained. Voluntary measures were signed because of the mother's drinking problems and her lack of supervision of the children. Last year, X had to be placed in a reception centre because he was aggressive and missed a lot of school. Last August, Y was placed for a month in a reception centre. [ 5 ] For a certain period of time last year, a new social worker intervened.

No legal measures were enforced at the time, but the social worker complained that the mother did not collaborate regularly, only when she had problems with her kids. [ 6 ] All the events mentioned by the social worker occurred in the past years and are not relevant anymore. [ 7 ] The children have been placed many times, and even if the mother never fully collaborated, they always tolerated her. Her situation only improved a little and they continued on voluntary measures. There are no new facts to justify such legal measures now.

The Director of Youth Protection has dealt with the lack of cooperation of the mother for many years even though he has signed voluntary measures. [ 8 ] The children's rights were wronged because their situation was never rectified once the Director was of the opinion that their security and development were in danger (sections 51, 52, 53 Y.P.A.). At one point, the Director of Youth Protection had the obligation to refer the mother to the Tribunal because the mother withdrew from the agreement and the children's situation remained in danger.

At the time, with new admissible information that the security and development of the children were considered to be in danger, he had sufficient evidence to come before the Court. [ 9 ] Furthermore, concerning the legal procedures, sections 76 and 105 of the regulation of the Youth Protection Act provides that the declaration accompanied with a notice of the date fixed for proof and hearing must be served shortly to the parents. In the present case, the Court has no proof of service to X's father and no request was made to the Court (section 105).

It is the duty of the petitioner to make sure his file is completed before submitting it to the Court. The clerk is not allowed to take into consideration an incomplete file in the docket. [ 10 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT : [ 11 ] DISMISSES the petitions; __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the applicant Me Jean-Claude Latraverse, attorney for the children Date of hearing : November 18, 2010