2012 QCCQ 19056, 2012 QCCQ 19056

Protection de la jeunesse — 128193 2012 QCCQ 19056 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: July 9, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A PETITIONER AND X , born on [...], 2002 605-41-000661-116 AND Y , born on [...], 2003 605-41-000663-112 AND Z, born on [...], 2007 605-41-000662-114 CHILDREN AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion to review and extend a decision rendered by the Honourable judge Denyse Leduc on November 16, 2011.

At that time, the three children were entrusted to their mother for a period of one year. [ 2 ] Although the father received the petitions and was offered travelling expenses for his transportation to City A to attend the hearing, he is not present nor represented by counsel. The mother is present, but not represented by counsel.

M e André Levasseur represents the interest of the children and M e Marie-Michèle Boulanger, the petitioner. [ 3 ] According to sections 76.3 and 76.4 of the Youth Protection Act , a draft agreement has been concluded and signed by the parties. [ 4 ] The parties recognize that the security and the development of the children are still endangered and, more precisely: 2.1 Since November 2011, the mother is waiting to receive a psychological follow-up; 2.2 Since the parent's (sic) separation, the father continues to threaten the mother by phone communications; the father has called during the night on many occasions; 2.3 Since January 2012, the mother's situation has deteriorated; she feels depressive and she does not have enough energy to assume adequately her parental responsibilities; 2.4 On or around March 2012, the paternal grandparents contacted the mother to have the child with them for a day; 2.5 The mother authorized that the child spends (sic) the day with the paternal grandparents and they were supposed to be back in the evening; 2.6 The paternal grandparents did not called (sic) the mother to inform her that the child would be brought back to her only the next day; 2.7 When the child X was returned to his mother, she learned from him that he had travelled to City A with his grandparents to see the father;

2.8 The child also mentioned that he was disturbed by his father's inebriate state; 2.9 Since March 28 th , 2012, the mother has the legal custody of the child, as it appears from the judgement filed and produced as exhibit D-2; 2.10 On or around April 13 th , 2012, the mother had a medical assessment and it revealed that she is in depression; since then, she is medicated; 2.11 Since April 16 th , 2012, the mother has been receiving services from a women shelter; 2.12 The mother does not feel secure because of the above-mentioned facts; 2.13 On or around May 8 th , 2012, the maternal grandfather showed up at the mother's place and noticed that the child Z was missing; 2.14 The mother did not know where the child Z was since she was sleeping when he left.

At that time, the mother was on medication; 2.15 The maternal grandfather searched and found the child (sic) few minutes later; he informed the applicant the next day; 2.16 On or around May 9 th , 2012, the mother entrusted the child to her parents where he remains to this day; 2.17 The children Y and X have missed many days of school because of the mother's situations (sic); the child Z has missed many activities at the A group for the same reason; 2.18 The mother has admitted that she was keeping Z with her because she does not want to stay alone; 2.19 The mother has also missed many appointments with the professionals who gives (sic) services to Z; 2.20 The applicant was informed that the maintenance of the mother's apartment is often neglected; 2.21 The father is not involved in the child's situation and has not received services for his difficulties; 2.22 The father has not participated with the social follow up (sic); 2.23 The child (sic) X and Y are afraid to have contacts with their father; 2.24 It is impossible to maintain the child with the mother; 2.25 The maternal grandparents are capable, welling (sic) and available to assume the child; [ 5 ] 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 Maintains that the security and development of the child is (sic) still in danger; 3.2 That the child be entrusted to the maternal grandparents, Mrs.

C and Mr.

D for a period of six (6) months; 3.3 That the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the DYP in regards (sic) of frequency and modalities; 3.4 That the contacts between the child and the father be supervised by the DYP in regards (sic) of frequency and modalities and that the contacts be conditional of (sic) a social follow-up; 3.5 That the mother benefits (sic) from health and (sic) services required by her situation; 3.6 That a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the child's family for a period of eighteen (18) months; 3.7 That the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the DYP to inform him of the current situation; 3.8 That the child receives (sic) specific health care and health services; 3.9 Maintains all the other measures that are still applicable from the last court order; 3.10 Authorize (sic) the exchange of information between the professionals that given (sic) services to the family and the DYP regarding the evolution of the situation and collaboration; 3.11 Entrust the child's situation to the DYP. [ 6 ] The parties gave a free and enlightened consent to those measures. [ 7 ] M e Levasseur, on behalf of the children, declares that this draft agreement and the measures proposed are in the best interest of his young clients and respect their rights. [ 8 ] The parties also agree that access rights with the paternal grandparents should be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the modalities and the frequency.

So, the Court will add this additional conclusion.

[ 9 ] The Court is of the opinion that these measures are likely to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of the three children. [ 10 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement; [ 13 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures contained in the draft agreement and therefore: [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still endangered; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the maternal grandparents, Mrs. C and Mr.

D for a period of six months; [ 16 ] Orders that the contact between the children and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards the frequency and the modalities; [ 17 ] Orders that the contact between the children and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards the frequency and the modalities and that the contacts be conditional to a social follow-up; [ 18 ] Orders that the contact between the children and the paternal grandparents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards the frequency and the modalities; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother take the necessary steps to receive health care and health services required by her situation; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the children's family for a period of eighteen months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the children receive all health care and health services deemed necessary; [ 23 ] MAINTAINS all the other measures that are still applicable from the last court order; [ 24 ] AUTHORISES the exchange of information between the professionals providing services to the family and the Director of Youth Protection concerning the situation and the collaboration of their clients; [ 25 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the court orders if required to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the court order. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Marie-Michèle Boulanger Lawyer for the petitioner M e André Levasseur Lawyer for the children A Mother Date of hearing: June 15, 2012