2012 QCCQ 9644, 2012 QCCQ 9644

Protection de la jeunesse — 121383 2012 QCCQ 9644 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRIC […] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001155-099, 640-41-001156-097, 640-41-001157-095 DATE: June 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 1998 Y, born on […], 2002 Z, born on […], 2003 [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Health Centre C.Y.P.C. working in Town A Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town C, Quebec, district A Father of Z ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on April 19, 2011 concerning X, born on […], 1998, his brother Y born on […], 2001 and his sister […] born on [...], 2003. [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented. The father of X and Y is not declared whereas the father of Z, B is absent.

He is not involved in the child's life and his whereabouts are unknown. [ 3 ] The children are represented and the oldest one is present. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 4 ] The admissions made by the mother and the children confirm that the security and development are still endangered. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be fostered in a foster family until they reach the age of majority being understood that the foster parent would be the maternal grandmother. [ 6 ] The mother contests the recommendation.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 7 ] The evidence tendered consists of the admissions made by the children and the mother, the testimony of the social worker and the review report filed as exhibit D-2. [ 8 ] In 2008, the Court ordered the foster care of Town D, the oldest child, in a foster family until the age of majority. That decision followed two other decisions, the first one rendered in 2006. [ 9 ] The decision rendered in 2008 filed in the Court file, illustrates the persistence of the endangering situation and the incapacity

of the mother to modify her way of life. Alcohol abuse, physical abuse, neglect and failure to protect the child were the main components that had triggered the Court's intervention. [ 10 ] Today, six years later, the situation remains quite similar if not worse. On June 9, 2009, the security and development of the three children was declared endangered for the following motives: alcohol abuse, conjugal violence and neglect.

Must also be outlined that the boyfriend of the mother at the time, was suspected of sexual abuse on the child Z, who had like him, tested positive for gonorrhoea. [ 11 ] The Court had ordered the foster care of the three children in foster families for a period of eight months. Others measures had been ordered namely in order to help the mother stabilize her personal and conjugal situation. [ 12 ] On January 12, 2011, the Court implemented the agreement submitted by the Director of Youth Protection and signed by all the parties.

The children were to be entrusted to the mother under specific conditions. [ 13 ] Two months later, the Court reviewed the decision and ordered the foster care of the children in foster families for a period of twelve months with a possibility of reintegration. [ 14 ] The admissions made today, the testimony of the social worker and the review report convince the Court of the following: - the mother is not capable at the present time and has not been capable for the past six years to achieve sobriety; - the mother still experiences instability in her conjugal relations, including extreme violence; - the mother can be extremely aggressive towards her children, when drunk; - the mother does not collaborate with the services, refuses or does not show herself at scheduled meetings with the Director of Youth Protection; - the mother has not participated to any service, treatment or therapy to solve her alcohol abuse problem or personal issues; - the mother still maintains ties with C, notwithstanding the fact that he is the person suspected of having sexually abused the child Z. [ 15 ] The review report contains a paragraph that illustrates without any doubt the way of life and the problems of the mother: [ 16 ] At page 4, the social worker writes: There has been many police interventions since the last court order.

There were 9 occasions during which the A Regional Police force dealt with the mother while she was intoxicated: April 25, June 19, June 24, July 24, November 8 and December 1, 2011 and January 12, 2012. On July 14 th , 2011, the mother was accused of stealing alcohol while working for Air Inuit. On August 11 th , 2011 the mother was charged for driving under the influence of alcohol. On November 25 th , 2011 the mother was charged with assault while she was intoxicated.

On February 10 th , 2012 an impressive amount of alcohol was seized from the mother: 12 ten ounce bottles of vodka 40%, 3 forty ounce botles of vodka 94%, 1 forty ounce bottle of vodka 40% and 1 ten ounce of Jack Daniels. On November 08 th , 2011, The A Regional Police Force intervened at the mother's home for an aggravated assault. Upon their arrival, the mother was highly intoxicated and cleaning a big puddle of blood from her kitchen floor. On that night, the mother's boyfriend, C, had severely assaulted a young man. This young man suffered severe trauma, was in a coma for a few days and came close to death.

Following that aggravated assault, C was sent to prison in the south. […] [ 17 ] The security and development of the children have been, for the past six years and remain today, endangered by the way of life of the mother, as a parent, as a person and as a spouse. [ 18 ] When alcohol abuse is present, persistent and regular, it triggers or brings about as consequences, neglect.

It also prevents adequate parental supervision that in turns permit or renders possible abuse by third parties. [ 19 ] As demonstrated by the evidence tendered, if the parent does not solve his alcohol abuse intake, it becomes extremely difficult to foresee the reintegration of the children because the risk is impossible to manage, without a serious likelihood of prejudice for the children. [ 20 ] Considering the incapacity and/or the unwillingness of the mother to modify her way of life and taking into account the total length of the foster care measures, the Court is convinced that the recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection respects the rights and interests of the children. [ 21 ] The maternal grandmother, who fosters the children, wishes to continue.

She seeks assistance concerning the interventions of the mother in her house, while under the influence of alcohol. [ 22 ] Access and visitation rights of the mother have to be supervised and should she presents herself at the grandmother's residence, under the influence of alcohol, the assistance from the police should be required. [ 23 ] Is it possible to foresee reintegration of the children with their mother, on a middle term basis? At this point the forecast is not favourable, but should the mother achieves sobriety, will remain personal and conjugal issues that must be addressed. Furthermore,

should it be the case, the Director will have to consider the interest of the children, the time elapsed and the consequences associated with a potential withdrawal following a relapse of the mother. [ 24 ] As always, the evaluation of the risk associated with reintegration is one of the most difficult tasks. Nevertheless, the interest and the rights of a child supersede the progress made by a parent, even if solid and somewhat permanent. [ 25 ] FOR THE ABOVE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the demands; [ 27 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the children in danger; [ 28 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered on April 19, 2011; [ 29 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) the foster care of the children in foster families, until they reach the age of majority and recommend the foster family be the grandmother;

b) that a person working for an establishment or organism provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children, the grandmother and the mother; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES personal relations between the mother and the children; [ 31 ] ORDERS that access and visitation rights be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection, as for the frequency and modalities; [ 32 ] ENTRUTS the situation of the children, to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Cassandra Neptune Lawyer for the children Me Alexandre Cimon Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer of the mother Date of hearing: May 1, 2012