2015 QCCQ 9259, 2015 QCCQ 9259

Protection de la jeunesse — 15945 2015 QCCQ 9259 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 650-41-002206-122 DATE: May, 26 th 2015 BY JUDGE RICHARD CÔTÉ, C.Q. In the situation of : X Born on [...] [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , authorized person for the Director of youth protection, district A Petitioner and A and B Parents JUDGMENT 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 Court was presented with an application for review of an order rendered on April 2 nd 2014 concerning X and extending a previous order providing that the child be entrusted to his paternal uncle C and his aunt, D . [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection submits a motion for revision and extension for the following reasons : 2. Since the last order, the child lived with his uncle and his aunt in Town A to receive all the health care needed by his situation. 3.

The child’s health has improved and his treatments are supposed to finish in December 2015; 4. Since the last order, the child saw his mother three (3) times and has telephone calls twice (2), and no contacts with his father; 5. The mother still has drinking problems and this problem causes domestic violence with the father; 6. After an assessment of the situation, it appears that the security or development of the child is in danger, more specifically : A.

The child is in danger because there is a serious risk that a child’s parents are not providing for the child’s basic needs because of the drug and alcohol addictions and the unresolved neglect problems; B. The parents have difficulties to providing health care services in regards to the child’s physical health; [ 3 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the protection measures be extended for a period of eight (8) months. [ 4 ] Both parents are present.

They agree with the extension of the measures. [ 5 ] According to the evidence, since the court’s decision last November, the parent’s situation remains difficult. Their relationship is unstable. It happened several times that they separate then reconcile. [ 6 ] The mother’s situation remains fragile. In her written report, Mrs. [Social Worker 2] mentions : Mrs. A ’s situation is still fragile. She is currently being followed by a social worker working for the [CLSC A]. The follow-up focuses on her drug and alcohol consumption problems. Mrs.

A has not yet been enrolled or attended a therapy program for her alcohol and drug

consumption problems; however, she states that her situation is improving. Since January 2015, Mrs. A has only consumed alcohol during special occasions. She prefers to be present at home for her children and their father. Mrs. A reports less than five events during which she consumed alcohol since November 2014. Indeed, we have noticed that Mrs. A ’s situation is improving, but we believe that she still needs help and support in order to work on her current difficulties. [ 7 ] Both parents offer a good collaboration, and their situation is improving. [ 8 ] However, the child needs constant medical care.

To receive his treatments, he has to reside in the proximity of a major hospital. In her written report, Mrs. [Social Worker 2] mentions : X , 2 years old, is diagnosed with leukemia and currently undergoing treatment for this condition at the CH[A] in the [region A] since October 18 th 2013. In fact, the child must follow a treatment ( Town A 2005-01 protocol) for duration of approximately two years. The child must reside near the hospital in order to attend his treatments (chemotherapy, biopsies or lumber puncture) which are planned weekly. To this day, the child is responding well to the treatment.

The child lives in Town A with his paternal aunt, D , since October 8 th 2013. Mrs. D respects the treatment

schedule and constantly accompanies the child to the hospital during his regular visits. [ 9 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and the development of the child remain in danger. [ 10 ] During the hearing, the Court was informed that the parents don’t make sufficient efforts to maintain regular contacts with their child. They should make greater efforts to rebuild a strong relationship with their child.

THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child remain’s entrusted to the care of his paternal uncle C and his aunt, D until the 26 th of January 2016; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child receives health care and professional services deemed necessary by the professionals involved in his situation; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of youth protection and inform the youth workers of the steps they have taken to address their respective situations and of any change of address or telephone number; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents submit themselves to an assessment for drug or alcohol problems and submit to a therapy if deemed necessary by the person who made the assessment; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS both parents to remain sober when they are in the presence of their child; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents remain in contact with their child through visitations or telephone calls, and inquire about his health; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the exercise of the attributes of parental authority regarding health care be withdraw from the parents and AUTHORIZES the Director of youth protection to consent to the health care services needed by the child if the parents can’t be reached in a reasonable delay; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; July, 6 th 2015 __________________________________ RICHARD CÔTÉ, J.C.Q.

Me Lyne Monger Lawyer of Director of youth protection Me Mathieu Tshernish-Jourdain Lawyer of the youth

Me Mathieu Racine Lawyer of the mother Me Marie-Josée Bernier Lawyer of the father Date of hearing: May, 26 th 2015