2013 QCCQ 17246, 2013 QCCQ 17246

Protection de la jeunesse — 135861 2013 QCCQ 17246 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001360-111 640-41-001361-119 DATE: September 20, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A C.Y.P.C. working in Town A Applicant -and- X & Y, both residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by Gagnon J. on May 24, 2012, concerning X, born on […], 2004 and Y, born on […], 2001. [ 2 ] At the hearing both children are present and represented by their lawyer as are the parents. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests that both children be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months.

The father disagrees and believes the children should be entrusted to him. The mother is ambivalent. Despite her shortcomings she wants what is best for her children, more particularly regarding school attendance and proper supervision. As for the children, they wouldn't mind staying in a foster family provided it is with their aunt. THE FACTS [ 4 ] On May 24, 2012, Gagnon J. reviewed a previous decision and entrusted both children to a foster family, which was in fact the maternal aunt.

The placement was to be followed by the reintegration of the children with the mother as soon as the situation allowed it. [ 5 ] The evidence shows that since the last judgment the children were reintegrated with the mother but were also often staying either with their grandparents, the maternal aunt or the father. The mother admitted to a Youth Protection worker that she continued to drink in front of the children. She did not maintain her follow-up with social services. Moreover, a big part of the safety net fell through when the grandparents left the community for an extended period of time.

On May 22, 2013, this led to a provisional order under

section 76.1 Y.P.A. by which Roy J. entrusted the children to the father. [ 6 ] The applicant took over the family's case at the beginning of July. She testifies that she was unable to meet the father despite several visits to his dwelling. According to her she had no idea where the father was. She does recognize that the father never missed a fixed appointment but was nowhere to be found. From information gathered here and there and that was never confirmed, the applicant states that there is a lack of food at the father's place.

In the revision report, she adds that there is information to the effect that the father is repeating the same relational dynamic with his girlfriend than the one that prevailed with the mother. [ 7 ] Moreover, the children were often found at their mother's house. Under the circumstances, the applicant feels that the father's lack of supervision warrants the placement of the children in a foster family, considering the mother cannot care for them at this time.

[ 8 ] Y is at a critical stage of his development. He is struggling with anger management issues for which he receives some support from a D.Y.P. educator. For his part, X is doing well and his development is comparable to other kids of his age. [ 9 ] As for the father, he does admit that he left the community for a three-week period, only to help a nephew who was hospitalized in Town B. He was never told to meet with the delegate of the Director of Youth Protection and he denies there is a lack of food or supervision at his house. He is ready to comply with a clear Court order regarding a follow-up with the applicant. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 10 ] Following

section 4 of the Youth Protection Act it would be premature to entrust the children to a foster family. [ 11 ] The fact of the matter is that the applicant did very little to enquire about the father's whereabouts. Ever since his return from Town B nothing was done to meet with the father and offer him guidelines and support regarding the care and supervision of his children. The applicant's impressions concerning the lack of food are simply not substantiated by the evidence.

The Director of Youth Protection must offer services in order to help the father in the exercise of his parental role before requesting the placement of the children in a foster home. [ 12 ] The present order will provide strict guidelines for the father and the D.Y.P. in the hope the father will be able to offer his sons proper care and supervision. The Court cannot allow the father to delegate his parental responsibilities to the mother who is not in a state of mind to care for her children. Y's struggle with anger management issues commands a stable living environment.

If the father cannot, with the D.Y.P.'s help, provide such stability the children's situation will have to be revised. [ 13 ] The mother is well aware of the negative impact of her alcohol consumption on her children but maintains she is still not ready to get the necessary help.

She must realize that time is of the essence and the children cannot wait forever. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS partially the petitions; [ 16 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of both children remain endangered; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the children to the father for a period of six months; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of one year; [ 19 ] ORDERS that Mr Beltempo's psychological assessment of Y and the mother be filed at the next hearing; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the father report in person at least once a week to the D.Y.P.; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the father take the necessary steps for the children to attend school on regular basis; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and the mother be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to frequency and modalities; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the father take the necessary measures in order for the contacts between the children and the mother to occur under the supervision of the D.Y.P.; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober when in the presence of the children; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the father take

part in an intervention plan in order to set house rules that he will have to apply notably in regards to a curfew and school attendance; [ 27 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the children M e Sarah Plamondon

Lawyer for the mother M e Michel Solomon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: August 20, 2013