2014 QCCQ 14778, 2014 QCCQ 14778

Protection de la jeunesse — 142936 2014 QCCQ 14778 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 615-41-001621-118 and 615-41-001622-116 DATE: July 7, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2009 Y, born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, exercising his profession at the Centre jeunesse A having a place of business at […] in Town A, District A, Petitioner and A, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 (1 and 2), YPA, 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 YPA). [ 1 ] [Social Worker 1], delegate duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, is asking the Court to review and extend the last decision rendered on May 22, 2013 concerning the situation of X ([…]old) and Y ([…]old).

He asks that the children be entrusted to the mother and that the parents receive therapy and follow-up for the next year. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and not represented.

The children are represented by Me Angela Tommasel and the petitioner by Me Valerie Martel. [ 3 ] The evidence of the new facts in support of the recommendations is based on the admissions of the parents, the medical report of Dre Stéphanie Jacques, neurologist, the revision report and the testimonies of the parents and the social worker. [ 4 ] From the analysis of all the evidence, it is proven that the father still consume regularly marijuana, that the mother maintain her sobriety for alcohol and diminish significantly her consumption of drugs, that the parents still have conflicts and that last April 14, the father uses violence towards the mother.

Police was called and charges were pressed. The police found marijuana plants in the apartment. [ 5 ] Since the assault, the parents are separated. The father lives at his parents' place and the mother and the children remain in the family residence. [ 6 ] Since the last judgment, the father did not attend therapy for anger management and he did not participate in marital counselling sessions. [ 7 ] The mother's behaviour is acceptable.

She gives priority to the children's needs even if she gets sometimes overwhelmed and stressed. [ 8 ] The child Y was evaluated by the neurologist Dre Stéphanie Jacques and she maintained the diagnostic of ADHD and severe dysphasia. The psychologist who also evaluated Y detected a possible spectre of moderate autism.

Evaluation will be completed, but meanwhile, the child who is very active and can be oppositional, needs services and lots of care. [ 9 ] Considering the fragility of the mother's situation and the fact that the father still has problems that affect their relationship and did not, up to now, collaborate,

[ 10 ] Considering the bound between the parents and the mother's decision to give priority to her three children and to maintain them in a safe, stable and structured family, [ 11 ] Considering that the father seem motivated to get involved in the therapies and follow-up he needs in such a way and that the Director of Youth Protection will end his intervention at the end of the year, [ 12 ] Considering the parents' agreement with the recommendations, FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS the children X and Y to the mother; [ 16 ] ORDERS the father to attend an anger management therapy; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the father be evaluated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist; [ 18 ] ORDERS the father to attend therapy for his addiction problems if required by the psychologist or psychiatrist; [ 19 ] ORDERS the mother to engage herself in a follow-up regarding drugs and alcohol abuse for the duration that the professional will decide; [ 20 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visits between the father and the children (duration, frequency and presence of a third party) until he successfully complete a therapy and an anger management program; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the parents and the children for a period of 12 months; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the children receive all the health care needed; [ 23 ] ORDERS the mother to pursue her psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Valérie Martel Attorney for the petitioner Me Angela Tommasel Attorney for the children Date of hearing: June 5, 2014