2017 QCCQ 19951, 2017 QCCQ 19951

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710378 2017 QCCQ 19951 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: September 15, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2005 614-41-000242-174 Y, born on [...], 2007 614-41-000243-172 CHILDREN ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WOKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 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 motions asking the Court to declare that the security and development of the X, twelve years old, and Y, ten years old, are endangered pursuant to sections 38 1°

b) i) and 38 1°

b) iii) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] Both children are present and represented by Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis. Mtre. Michel Grenier acts on behalf of the mother and Mtre. Marie-José Ayoub on behalf of the father. Mtre. Adelia Ferreira represents the applicant. [ 3 ] Both parents agree that the security and development of the children are endangered, but they challenge the recommendations made by the Social Worker.

As for the children, the first stage is challenged and they both have the same position as their parents, that is to say, that they should be entrusted to their father. [ 4 ] The evidence reveals that the relationship between the parents ended about one year ago and the children resided with their mother who is living at the maternal grandparents’ place. [ 5 ] After the separation, the father was unable to see his children for a period of two months, and this, due to the position taken by the mother. [ 6 ] To this day, the mother does not accept this separation.

At the beginning of June, the mother vandalised the paternal grandparents’ home, where the father lives, while the children were there. At that time, she was under the influence of alcohol. [ 7 ] X also reported that the mother was unable to attend his grade six graduation on June 15, because she was drinking that day. He also complained that his mother was unable to throw him a birthday party because she was drinking again. Both children confirm that the mother and the maternal grandfather drink together at the grandparents’ place.

On June 22, after midnight, the grandmother left the home with the children since the maternal grandfather was drinking. [ 8 ] Two days later, on June 24, Y returned to his maternal grandparents’ place and both his mother and maternal grandparents were drinking again together. Since the child was seen around the house where people were drinking, the situation was reported to the Director of Youth Protection who applied immediate protective measures. Both children state that they do not want to return to the care of their mother because they don’t feel safe.

They expressed that the mother often leaves them at night. It seems that the maternal grandmother is unable to ensure that there is no drinking in her home. [ 9 ] The mother admits that she cannot care for the children herself and she agrees that the children be entrusted to their father.

[ 10 ] As for the father, he has been living back and forth between Town A and Town B because his new girlfriend lives in Town B. When he is in Town A, he lives at the paternal grandparents’ place, which is an adequate home. The Court has heard the testimony of the paternal grandmother: she has very clear rules and consumption of intoxicating substances is not allowed in her home. She agrees to take care of both children if the father goes to Town B for a couple of days, but not on a permanent basis.

She states that she is willing to help her son and grandchildren. [ 11 ] When cross-examined, the applicant very honestly admitted that if the father resides at the paternal grandparents’ place and if he is sober, the children can be entrusted to him. [ 12 ] With this admission made by the applicant herself, the Court cannot contemplate a placement of the children in foster family. This would be contradictory to

section 4 of the Youth Protection Act which provides: “Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment.” [ 13 ] Here, with the plan presented by the father, agreed by the mother, the applicant and both children, it is not necessary to place the children to the care of someone else. [ 14 ] THEREFORE THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2005, and Y, born on [...], 2007, are endangered (38 b) 1°

i) and 38 b) 1° iii) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the children to the care of their father at the condition that they reside at the paternal grandmother’s home, Mrs.

C; [ 18 ] ORDERS both parents to be and remain sober at all times when in the presence of the children; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the children in the presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 20 ] ORDERS the father to inform the Director of Youth Protection each time he leaves Town A for more than 24 hours; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to meet with the NNADAP worker in order to be assessed and ORDERS them to follow the recommendations made by the professional; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to receive personal help for her own issues and also for anger management; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access rights with the mother be encouraged, but supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and frequency, including the presence of a third party if necessary; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the children and the family by a representative of the Director of Youth Protection who shall meet with them at least twice a month, for a period of nine months; [ 25 ] ORDERS the father to inform the Director of Youth Protection of any absence of the children from Town A for more than 48 hours; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Adelia Ferreira DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: July 25, 2017