2012 QCCQ 12181, 2012 QCCQ 12181

Protection de la jeunesse — 123968 2012 QCCQ 12181 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: June 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANT 1], Youth Protection Worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A PETITIONER AND X 605-41-000714-113 Born on […] 2004 And Y 605-41-000713-115 Born on […] 2006 And Z 605-41-000712-117 Born on […] 2008 And A 605-41-000711-119 Born on […] 2010 CHILDREN AND B MOTHER AND C FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON DRAFT AGREEMENT (Sections 38 and 76.4 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act asking to review and extend a previous court decision rendered on December 9, 2011 by Judge Denyse Leduc. [ 2 ] According to sections 76.3 and 76.4 of the Youth Protection Act, a draft agreement has been concluded and signed by the parties. [ 3 ] The parties recognize that the security and development of the children are still endangered and, more precisely in that: 2.1 Since the last judgment rendered, the father's situation has not involved (sic); he has consumption problems; 2.2 The father still recognizes those difficulties; 2.3 On or around December 31 st , 2011, a physical altercation occurred between the father and the child's babysitter; the police officers had to intervene; 2.4 On or around February 17 th , 2012, a physical altercation occurred between the father and the neighbourg (sic); the police officers had to intervene; 2.5 The parents were met by the applicant in regards (sic) to the above mentioned (sic) episodes and admitted that these events took place;

2.6 On or around March 26 th , 2012, the grandparents met the applicant and informed him that it was impossible for them to take care of the child for a longer period; 2.7 The parents recognized the problem and expressed the whish (sic) to receive individual follow-up (

s) and couples therapy; 2.8 The mother ('

s) situation has evolved and she is sober since the last judgment rendered; 2.9 The mother his (sic) able to take care of the child and choose (

s) to do so; the father will leave the home; 2.10 The mother collaborate (

s) well with the applicant and she has given all the information about the father's situation; 2.11 The mother has understood that she needs to protect the child; 2.12 The child has evolved well at the grandparents' place and he is doing well at school; [ 4 ] In order to put an end to the situation that endangers the children's security and development, the parties agree on the following measures: 3.1 That the child be entrusted to her mother for a period of six (6) months; 3.2 That the contacts between the child and her father be authorized and supervised by the director of youth protection, as per their frequency and conditions during this period; 3.3 That aid, council (sic) and assistance be providing (sic) to the child and his parents for a period of eighteen (18) months; 3.4 That the parents receive a follow up (sic) concerning their relationship problems; 3.5 That the parents authorize the DYP to do (sic) unannounced visits; 3.6 That the parents remain sober; 3.7 That the father receives services concerning his consumption problem until requires (sic) by the professionals; 3.8 That the father receives services concerning his violence problem until requires (sic) by the professional; 3.9 That the parents collaborate with a social follow up (sic) and the measures recommended; [ 5 ] Both parents declare to the Court that they give a free and enlightened consent to this agreement.

M e Isabelle Godon, who is acting on behalf of the children, declares that the measures proposed are in the best interest of her young clients and respect their rights. [ 6 ] The Court is satisfied that the submitted measures are likely to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and the development of the children. [ 7 ] For these motives, the Court: [ 8 ] Grants the motions; [ 9 ] Declares that the security and the development of the children are still endangered; [ 10 ] Orders that the four children be entrusted to their mother for a period of six (6) months; [ 11 ] Orders that the contact between the children and their father be authorized and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as per their frequency and conditions during this period; [ 12 ] Orders that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the parents for a period of eighteen (18) months; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively to a follow-up concerning their relationship problems; [ 14 ] Authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits; [ 15 ] Orders that the parents remain sober; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the father receive services concerning his consumption problem for as long as deemed necessary by the professional providing this service; [ 17 ] ORDERS the father to receive services concerning his violence related problem for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 18 ] Orders that the parents collaborate with a social follow-up and with the measures; [ 19 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate to the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth protection or one of his representatives; [ 20 ] ENTR USTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders.

__________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.Q.C. M e Marie-Michèle Boulanger Lawyer for the petitioner M e Isabelle Godon Lawyer for the children B Mother A Father Date of hearing: May 9, 2012