2021 QCCQ 15240, 2021 QCCQ 15240

Protection de la jeunesse — 219046 2021 QCCQ 15240 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002535-208 DATE: October 20, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C.

Applicant and A Mother and B Father and C & D Interested Parties ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on October 23, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2019. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered, entrusted the child to a foster family and authorized the gradual reintegration of the child with Mr.

D, as soon as the situation allows it, until October 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation allow the child to be maintained with the interested parties with different measures. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The parents were dully served and clearly expressed not willing to attend the hearing. The father is detained, the mother is still living in Town A and both mentioned agreeing with the measures recommended by the DYP. [ 4 ] The interested parties are absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. They agree that the Court proceed in their absence.

They recognize that the security and development of the child are still endangered and they agree with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is 2 years old. He is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. On her client’s behalf, Me Tommasel submits that his situation is still endangered and that the recommended measures are in his best interest. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On October 23, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The parents are not involved in the child’s life.

They gave the child through traditional adoption to the interested parties, but the process had never been completed. The interested parties admit having alcohol and drugs consumption issues as well as conjugal violence issues. The “adoptive” mother is pregnant and she recognized that she had consumed drugs and alcohol until the end of the pregnancy. Indeed, she was brought to the hospital by ambulance due to her high level of intoxication by drugs (cannabis and cocaine) and by alcohol. By security, the medical staff induced labour.

The child is in Town B with his “adoptive” parents and in such circumstances, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to a foster family. But that did not prevent the child from being in the presence of an intoxicated person. The “adoptive” father recognized his responsibility and his incapacity to control his spouse when she drinks. [ 7 ] The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered and entrusted him to a foster family. The Court authorized a reintegration with Mr.

D if the situation allows it, and ordered that the caregivers receive the services of an external educator, the whole until October 31, 2021.

Facts [ 8 ] After the last decision, the child remained entrusted to the specialized foster family in Town A until March 2021, when the reintegration process started. [ 9 ] The caregivers collaborated well with the services and they made great improvements in their lives, particularly Mr. D who demonstrated his ability to protect the children by asking the mother to leave the house when she drinks. The parents did not seek professionals help, but the situation evolved enough to permit the reintegration. Indeed, Mr.

D was able to remain sober for a long period and he is the main caregiver of the child. [ 10 ] Also at that time, Ms. A was detained and her absence was helpful for Mr. D to keep a healthy way of life. The DYP worker spoke with him about the risk of relapse when Ms. A would be released, but he was firm about his intention to remain on this good path. [ 11 ] More the release was coming, more Mr. D was anxious. He spoke with Ms. A’s lawyer to make sure about the criminal conditions she would have to respect in a way to protect her, but also to protect the children.

When she was released in June 2021, she came back living at home and Mr. D called the DYP worker to make sure again about the criminal conditions. It had been confirmed that she was allowed to live in the family house. [ 12 ] Since the reintegration had started, the situation remained positive until September 16, 2021, when the parents started to consume and to fight. There were police interventions on September 16, 17, 21 and 29, 2021. [ 13 ] Since that time, Ms. A took important steps to entrust Center A and she was accepted. She travelled to Town B and during the week of Court, Mr.

D was absent specifically because he also went to Town B to bring the child to Ms. A for the duration of the therapy. [ 14 ] Since the last decision and particularly since the child had been reintegrated, it is noted that he is developing very well. He is surrounded by brothers and sisters and due to that, he is well stimulated, even if he does not attend daycare. [ 15 ] According to the biological parents and caregivers’ desire, the DYP will help them with the adoption process.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are still endangered; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr. D; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is currently with Ms. A at Center A Treatment Center; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES the child to remain with Ms. A as long as she stay at the Center A Treatment Center; [ 21 ] ORDERS that if Ms. A do not complete the program that the child be returned to the care of Mr.

D; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and Ms. A be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the interested parties periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the interested parties take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the interested parties Date of hearing: October 20, 2021