2018 QCCQ 19452, 2018 QCCQ 19452

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810763 2018 QCCQ 19452 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000833-175 DATE: October 29, 2018 (written judgment rendered on December 3, 2018) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, presently detained at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to extend the decision rendered on January 30, 2018, regarding X, born on [...], 2015.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [1] and entrusted her to a foster family with a reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The Director submits that the situation does not allow the reintegration to her mother and recommends prolonging the placement until October 31, 2018, and to maintain the possibility of reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent because she went to Town A to escort a family member to the hospital and the delay was too short to allow her to come back and be present for the court hearing. She gave a mandate to Me Tommasel to represent her in her absence. By the voice of her lawyer, she admits the alleged facts and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is actually detained and not represented by a lawyer. Considering he was duly served and the interest of the child, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] X, who is now 2 years old is not present but represented by Me Neptune.

After hearing the evidence, her lawyer invites the Court to grant the application and the measures requested. The Facts [ 6 ] The parents displayed alcohol consumption and violence problems. For this reason, X was entrusted to a friend of the mother, Ms. C since November 2017.

Notwithstanding this placement, the mother maintains daily contact with her child among other things to breastfeed her. [ 7 ] In January 2018, Justice Lecompte declared the security and the development of X in danger and entrusted her to a foster family with a progressive reintegration with the mother, the whole until October 31, 2018. [ 8 ] X is still with Ms. C and she is doing very well.

Because the mother continues to be very present in the child’s life, the child creates secure bonds with her. [ 9 ] After few months not being reachable by the DYP worker, the mother mobilizes herself and shows she really wants her daughter back under her care. She is occupying two jobs to be able to provide financially for her children. She is living at the grandmother since the separation but waiting for her own house. No events of alcohol or drug consumption are reported since the last judgment. Her situation improved mostly since the father is incarcerated.

[ 10 ] The worker explains that he would appreciate that the mother be more collaborative with him but the evidence shows that he is not really proactive to initiate contacts and meetings with the mother. He is aware that she goes to Social Services to seek help for her consumption problem. [ 11 ] The DYP considers the reintegration could be imminent if the mother continues to seek help through Social Services regarding alcohol issues and violent relationship. analysis [ 12 ] According to the evidence and the admissions, the Court considers the situation of X is still in danger.

The measures recommended are in the interest of the child but the Court reminds that the DYP needs to be more proactive to gain the confidence of the mother and bring her to understand the importance of the follow-up from the Youth Protection services. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS this application; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X, born on [...], 2015, continue to be in danger; [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS X to Ms.

C, as foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 16 ] AUTHORIZES the child’s reintegration with the mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 17 ] ORDERS the parents to report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS the parents to take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues to address her substance abuse problem; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participates in a follow-up for victims of conjugal violence; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seeks help for his personal issues; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to their modalities, their frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child, the parents and Ms.

C until October 31, 2019; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 29, 2018