2012 QCCQ 13948, 2012 QCCQ 13948

Protection de la jeunesse — 125667 2012 QCCQ 13948 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division N° : 505-41-006842-126 505-41-006843-124 DATE : June 21, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE L’HONORABLE JEAN GRAVEL ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN: X, born on […], 2009 Y, born on […], 2008 Children v. [Social Worker 1] Petitioner and A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT (article 38 de la L.P.J.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In accordance with

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act, the Court is seized of a motion to have the security and development of declared in danger for X and Y the reasons appearing in paragraph of the motion. [ 2 ] With consent and to serve as evidence, the Director of Youth Protection filed various exhibits (D-2 to D-18) in the record, as the minutes of the hearing show. [ 3 ] Through her attorney, the mother made admissions in support of paragraph 3 of the motion: a)b)c)d)admitted; e)denied as written; f)ignored; g)h)denied as written; i)j)k)admitted; l)m)ignored; n)admitted; o)p)denied; q)admitted; r)ignored; s)denied as written.

The mother should desire that the children be with her and otherwise proposes an alternative: that children are entrusted to paternal grandparents. [ 4 ] Through her attorney, the mother made admissions in support of paragraph 3 of the motion: g)denied; h)denied; o)denied; p)denied; r)ignored; s)denied.

The father contested the measures wanted by Director and request the return of children. [ 5 ] Through their attorney, the children ignores all the allegations contained in the motion and desire hear evidence for take position [ 6 ] The security and the development of the child are considered to be in danger for the following reasons: ➢ On October 7, 2011, early in the morning, the A was called because the child Y was found standing in the street alone, with no shoes on and was crying; ➢ More than one (1) hour after, the father contacted A station to report his child was missing; ➢ The father explain that he was sleeping and habitually, when the mother leaves to work, she wake him up if the children is awake; ➢ The father also mention that it's not the first time the situation happens; ➢ The same day, upon investigation, it was found that the father had gone back to sleep, the child X was sleeping with him and the child Y was playing alone in the house; ➢ The child Y and X was signaled for a situation of neglect; ➢ The home is dirty with garbage covering the floor, and with toys, food, drinks scattered about the house, and the house smelt like

feces; ➢ The home was not equipped with safety railing, and the doors did not adequately close or lock; ➢ On January 5, 2012, the mother informed the DYP that she left the children accidentally unsupervised and explained that the baby sitter left them alone; ➢ During the month of January, the parents obtained a pit bull dog; ➢ The mother has an other child who is actually followed by A Protection; ➢ This other child verbalize that his mother and B namely hits him with a belt and the B drink a lot of beer; ➢ A doctor and a nurse of A Clinic have concerns about the children because; .1. they suffer from speech delays for their age; .2.

They have their own developmental delays; .3. The child Y is still not completely toiled trained; .4. They have difficult behaviour; .5.

The child X is overweight; ➢ The parents can say what type of kindergarten the child Y is; ➢ The father had approached minors to perform oral sec with him; ➢ The mother purchases pornography videos for the father; ➢ The father is a registered sexual offender with a minor in the United States and is wanted for absconder; ➢ The children were signaled for psychological ill-treatment, risk of sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect; ➢ The father uses cocaine. [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection has written on February 24th, 2012 two petitions concerning X and Y. [ 8 ] Y was born on […] 2008.

X is […] year old since […]. [ 9 ] Both young children lived with their parents until February 24 th when they were entrusted to a foster family. [ 10 ] A situation of severe negligence prevailed in the family for a certain period of time. [ 11 ] Last October 2011 Y then aged […], was found alone on the street wearing a tshirt and a diaper, walking barefoot. [ 12 ] This father only reacted after his son had left the house more than one hour afterwards. [ 13 ] The house was found dirty, garbage being on the floor an odder of feces was perceptive.

They were some fundamental safety devices missing for a house where babies walk and stroll around. [ 14 ] In January 2012 X and Y were left alone by their mother without proper surveillance. [ 15 ] The mother has another older child that is followed by Youth Protection and does not reside with her. Mother has limited intellectual faculties. [ 16 ] The father was convicted in the USA for sexual assault on a minor. He was condemned to prison.

He did not complete his term of prison,Father explains now that living in Canada and having an Indian Status prevents him from being forced to go back on the US territory to be imprisoned. If he crosses the US border he might be a arrested. His status is still unsettled. B admits he did wrong by having sexual relations with his spouse's daughter in the USA.

He was 20 years old and the adolescent was 14 years old. [ 17 ] The audition of these proceeding were postponed at certain moments to allow the evaluation of the domicile of the paternal grandparents where the parents suggested the children be entrusted. [ 18 ] The Director did not recommend this option.

The grandparents seemed to minimalize the gravity of the situation that prevailed at their son's house. [ 19 ] The children remained in foster care from the end of February to this date. [ 20 ] The children had shown some development delays and were showing some progress since they have received more professional services and regular stimulation in their foster family. [ 21 ] At the last hearing on June 21 st the parents would have preferred that the children be given back to them. They offered has an option that the children be entrusted to the paternal grandparents.

[ 22 ] The Court had the opportunity to hear both grandparents. Those persons have taken an important role in the life of the children since their birth. [ 23 ] The solution presented by the parents which involves the grandparents is appropriate and corresponds to the principles of law drafted at paragraph 4 of the Youth Protection act. [ 24 ] Even though the grandparents do not have the same perception of the gravity of the situation as the Director presents it, it is the responsibility of the parents (not the grandparents) to address the problem and seek for help.

The presence of the grandparents will not obstruct the work the parents need to do in collaboration with the social services. [ 25 ] The security and development of both children are in danger because they were seriously neglected by their parents. [ 26 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 27 ] DECLARE that the security and the development of the children Y and X are in danger; [ 28 ] ORDERS THE WHOLE MEASURES until February 24 2013; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the children Y and X paternal grandparents until December 31 2012; ALLOWS reintegration the children with the parents; [ 30 ] ALLOWS unexpected visits to domicile of the paternal grandparents from Kahnawake social-services; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS also to the grandparents to inform of the evolution of the children to the Director Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts and visitations between the children Y and X and the parents be

schedule and supervised by a person designated by the Director Youth Protection, this supervision could be withdraw if all parties agree; [ 33 ] ORDERS that both children receive all medical, educational and psychological follow up as necessary, [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS both parents undergo a psychological assessment that includes parental capacity and a sexual deviancy assessment and follows recommendations; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents continue to participate with their addiction counsellor with the purpose to assess the substance use issues, and follow recommendations; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents undergo random substance urine screening; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues to follow up with her support worker and support groups and follow recommendations; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents meet with their caseworker on a regular scheduled basis to update their situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for a body or an establishment provides to the children Y and X and her family; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the children maintain the A program everyday; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection of le Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the judgment; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE WITHOUT COST. __________________________________ JEAN GRAVEL , juge Cour du Québec Chambre de la jeunesse Me Marie LaRoche, Attorney for the D.Y.P.

Me Jean-Pierre Gaudreau, Attorney for the children Me Patrick Cormier, Attorney for the mother Me Cedric Dumoulin, Attorney for the father Date d’audience : June 21, 2012