2020 QCCQ 10182, 2020 QCCQ 10182

Protection de la jeunesse — 207302 2020 QCCQ 10182 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division » No: 614-41-000307-183; 614-41-000415-192 DATE: June 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...]. APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2017 Y, born on [...], 2019 CHILDREN and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the 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 Director of Youth protection submits applications to review and extend a judgment rendered by Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q., on November 14, 2019, entrusting the children to a foster home for a period of 6 months with reintegration with the mother if she attended [Center A], mother and child program. [ 2 ] The father is currently incarcerated at A Penitentiary. He is present via videoconference and he is represented by Mtre. Michel Grenier. The mother, also present, is represented by Mtre.

Marie-Josée Ayoub and Mtre. Yan Massé acts on behalf of the children. The applicant is represented by Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka. [ 3 ] The father did not attend the whole hearing given the fact that he didn’t want to miss the canteen; he left. It goes without saying that he does not seem very preoccupied by the situation of his daughters. [ 4 ] Despite the fact that the mother has a place of her own, she is not currently living there because a tragic event occurred at her neighbour’s place. She does not know when she will be able to return living there.

For the time being, she is living at her parents’ place, adding that she thinks her father does not want her to be there. [ 5 ] She has not attended [Center A], mother and child program. [ 6 ] She usually collaborated well with the Social Worker. She had access rights with her daughters. Verifications were made during the exercise of these access rights and everything went well. [ 7 ] Last May, she was incarcerated for a short period of time because of a fight. She states that it’s hard to stay away from alcohol on the street she lives on.

She applied for a new unit, but as she owed a year of rent, her request has not been granted yet. [ 8 ] The mother still has to work on her issues and she is still interested in attending [Center A] as soon as she has an intake date. [ 9 ] The placement of the two children is still necessary, but if the mother is admitted to [Center A], the children could be entrusted to her as long as she remains there. If the mother were to be expelled or if she decided to quit, the children would have to return to the care of the foster families. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT:

[ 10 ] GRANTS the application; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X, born on [...], 2017, and Y, born on [...], 2019, are still endangered; [ 12 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in foster family for a period of 6 months; [ 13 ] AUTHORIZES the reintegration of the children with the mother at the condition that she enters the mother-child program at [Center A]; [ 14 ] ORDERS that if the mother quits or is expelled from the program at [Center A], that the children be entrusted back to their foster family for the remaining period of the six-month placement; [ 15 ] ORDERS the mother to complete the mother-child program at [Center A]; [ 16 ] ORDERS the mother to seek professional help to address her substance abuse and immediately engage with the NNADAP worker until she is accepted and admitted to [Center A]; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and the mother be under the supervision of the Director Youth Protection as for the frequency and modalities; [ 18 ] ORDERS that any access rights between the father, if released, and the children be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities and they must be established in the best interest of both children; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a follow-up with the foster family of X in order to improve the relationship between them and the mother; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES any service providers to share information with the Director of Youth Protection concerning attendance, collaboration and the evolution of the situation of their clients; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the mother and the children for a period of 6 months; [ 22 ] ORDERS that such aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the father if he expressly requests it; [ 23 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate with the execution of the measures ordered if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its duly mandated representatives; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Adélia Ferreira Ferreira, Lempicka, Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A – Town A Attorney for the children Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub Avocats inc. – Town B Attorney for the mother Mtre. Michel Grenier Michel Grenier, Avocat – Town C Attorney of the father Date of hearing: June 17, 2020