2012 QCCQ 15545, 2012 QCCQ 15545

Protection de la jeunesse — 121462 2012 QCCQ 15545 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000307-117 DATE: March 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner and X Child and C and D Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for revision and extension of an order in respect of X (2006-[...]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] On September 12, 2011, the Court declares that the security and development of this child are considered to be in danger and orders that he be entrusted to his mother with supportive measures and a social follow-up until July 31, 2012 for the reasons enunciated in the judgment. The main concern was hygiene and medical attention for the children and also absenteeism from school. [ 3 ] The petition is based on the following assertions and facts :

a) Mrs D lives with her children, Y, Z, A and X, her husband Mr E and his grandson E ;

b) despite all services put in place since last fall, the family’s situation deteriorated ;

c) for a few months, Ms D and Mr E had no income and the workers helped them with paperwork in order to correct that situation ;

d) the children do not have a valid Medicare card and the Youth center paid for medication on several occasions ;

e) the family received help for groceries because they did not have enough food ;

f) Mr E refused, a few times, to discuss their financial situation with the workers ;

g) the children’s clothes are not appropriate for the season, sometimes too small and often very dirty ;

h) the younger children often smell bad and are obviously dirty ;

i) school provided a snow suit to A because hers was too small, but she never wore it afterwards ;

j) the social intervener helped the family to get winter clothes ;

k) the children’s basic needs are not answered by Ms D and Mr E ;

l) on January 10, 2012, a big argument led to a fight involving Mr E, his son F, Ms D and also Y, while the younger children were in bed ;

m) the four younger children disclosed the situation, on the following day, stating there was fighting, threats to harm Ms D, screaming and that it got physical and they were scared ;

n) Mrs D and Mr E gave different versions of that event ;

o) on January 11, the five children were entrusted to foster homes ;

p) Mr F was thrown out of his father’s house, after youth protection’s meeting with the family ;

q) Mr C lives with his own mother and cannot take care of A and X on a daily basis. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the mother is present with her lawyer. The child is also represented.

The father is absent and unrepresented. [ 5 ] The mother's and child's lawyers admit, generally speaking, the situation described at the petition and accept the recommendations of the Director of youth protection. [ 6 ] The Court studied the petitioner's psychosocial report and the report of an external educator. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that after few months of intervention, the Director of youth protection was informed that a disturbing incident occurred at Mrs D's residence. [ 8 ] The Director of youth protection was also concerned about the children being neglected and the mother being very slow- moving in addressing the problems. [ 9 ] The children were removed from their home on urgent measures.

[ 10 ] The Court heard petitions for provisional compulsory foster care on January 20 and 23, 2012. [ 11 ] For the reasons enunciated in the judgment of January 23, 2012, the children were returned with their mother. [ 12 ] From that hearing and the actual psychosocial report's content, it is not quite sure what really happened in the household on January 10, 2012. [ 13 ] One thing is sure, there was an important argument involving the mother, her spouse Mr E and the latter's son, F.

The children were scared enough to disclose the event at school. [ 14 ] Since then, F is no more residing there and Mrs D and Mr E did many changes and are more in action to straighten up the whole situation. [ 15 ] Here are the excerpts of the psychosocial report showing the improvements since the provisory Court order : "During the legal measures process, Mrs D's family allowances were restored. With that money the family purchased a new mattress for X. They also bought the child diapers as well as a plastic cover to protect his mattress.

Mrs D and Mr E also filled their house with food, they bought each of the children new pillows, they painted the children's rooms, they cleaned out the children's dressers, they cleaned the children's clothes and they made sure that all of the children's clothing was appropriate. Mrs D and Mr E also purchased a printed for Y's lap top and bought her a car which they stored in their garage. Furthermore, Mr E's bank account was also restored to its active status for the family to use.

On January 23 rd , 2012, the Honourable Judge Robert Levesque ordered that B and his siblings be returned with their family with specific measures until the hearing for the revision of order. Mrs D and Mr E presented the youth protection workers with a sum-up of their finances within the requested ten days. Currently, the children all have appropriate clothing. Mrs D went to the children's school to sign authorisation forms in order for the four youngest children to be evaluated by a psychologist in order to detect any learning disabilities or special needs.

Mrs D also collaborates more with the school by contacting them regularly. The family also intervened with the school's help in regards to a bullying event that included B which occurred on the bus." [ 16 ] Today, the Director of youth protection is asking to maintain the children in their familial environment. [ 17 ] It is worthy to reproduce here the petitioner's analysis : "For the past month, Mrs D and Mr E have complied with the Court's orders. They have made the necessary changes in order to maintain the children's basic needs.

However, it is clear to the Director of the youth protection that Mrs D and Mr E still need to maintain this type of momentum throughout time. Also, we believe that Mrs D needs one-on-one support in filling out all of the required forms for her children's medical needs and services. Both Mrs D and Mr E need to be pushed and reminded regularly on the steps they need to complete in order to get results. We still feel that Mrs D has difficulty putting herself in action. Mrs D needs to understand that it is crucial that every child get the necessary medical or health services required by their condition.

We are still awaiting results. We are mainly concerned about the family's situation regarding Mr E's health condition. Mrs D is actually juggling the responsibility of having to take care of five children with a very sick husband. Mr E's health has gotten worse over the past month. Mrs D has no idea how she will deal or cope with his death and has yet to prepare the children for the inevitable. Losing a partner is a very stressful event. Keeping up with the children's daily routine and personal grief will be extremely difficult. We believe that the family will need support and guidance throughout this hard time.

We consider that it is imperative to recommend an extension of the September 12 th , 2011 ordinance because of the family's situation. Mrs D agrees to this recommendation and understands that there is still work to be done within her family, mainly assuring the children's medical needs.

Both Mrs D and Mr E need to demonstrate to the Director of youth protection that they are able to maintain the changes they have made over the course of time." [ 18 ] Considering the report's content and the position of the parties, the Court grants the petition in the sense of the recommendations filed today by the Director of youth protection and modified as for the duration. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 20 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to his mother, Mrs D ;

[ 21 ] ORDERS to Mrs D and to Mr E to not allow or tolerate the presence of Mr F in their home ; [ 22 ] ORDERS that X and his family receive the support of a specialized educator as long as deemed necessary by the professionals ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that Mrs D and Mr E participate actively in all the measures suggested by the Director of youth protection in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment ; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X receives all the services required by his medical health and that the recommendations be followed by the mother ; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his family ; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until October 31, 2012, for the carrying out of the present measures. __________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith, for the petitioner Me Alex Boudreau Leclerc, for the child Me Mathieu Racine, for the mother Mr C, the father (absent)