2013 QCCQ 11470, 2013 QCCQ 11470

Protection de la jeunesse — 133710 2013 QCCQ 11470 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 615-41-001841-138 DATE: July 26, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X, born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person practising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A , having a place of business at […] in City A , district A , […] Petitioner and A , domiciled and residing at [...] in City B , district A , [...] Mother−respondent and B , domiciled and residing at [...] in City B , district A , [...] Father−respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act ,

chapter P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] [Social Worker 1] , representative duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A , seized the Court of a motion seeking to have the security and development of X , born on [...] , 2013, declared in danger under sections 38 ( b ) (2 ) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The parents were present at the hearing and duly represented by attorneys, Mtre. Claude Beaudet for the mother and Mtre. Claude Cossette for the father. Mtre. Sylvie Roy acted for the child, and Mtre. Valérie Martel assisted the petitioner. [ 3 ] Further to the admissions by the parents, the Court declares that the security and development of the child are in danger for the reasons alleged. [ 4 ] The parents have had problems with alcohol and drug abuse for several years. They underwent therapy for their problems, but had relapses. In January 2013, the mother completed therapy at A , but she did not take

part in post-therapy follow-up and had relapses. The father also completed therapy and he, too, used substances again. [ 5 ] Since March 2013, the parents have used substances more regularly and physical and verbal violence problems have resurfaced in their relationship. On May 12, 2013, the mother moved into a centre for women victims of violence and stayed there for a period of one week. She left the centre, leaving her children there even though she had been told she could not do so. [ 6 ] Provisional measures were then ordered with regard to X and her sister, Y .

Both children were placed with a foster family, where they have been living ever since. [ 7 ] Despite the provisional placement, the evidence shows that, in May, the parents abused substances and were involved in several episodes of violence. [ 8 ] On June 5, 2013, the mother left the City C community for a few weeks and the father started taking himself in hand. [ 9 ] A social study was filed at the hearing on applicable measures, and the social worker recommended that the child be entrusted to her father.

The evidence shows in fact that the father has good parental capacity, is aware of the resources in his community and is able to request their assistance. The father has a loving bond with his children and knows how to meet their needs. He is able to protect his children. If he stands by his decision to exclude the mother from the home, the father will be able to assume responsibility for the child.

True, his situation in terms of his relationship with the mother is fragile, but with psychotherapy to treat his emotional dependency, he will be able to meet his children’s needs. [ 10 ] The social worker testified about the father’s motivation to take care of X and her sister. In recent weeks, he has shown great

motivation to provide his children with a stable and secure environment. He agrees with the exclusion of the mother from the home and with the supervision of the mother’s contact with her children.

The father has shown he has a realistic perception of the situation, and he is prepared to seek assistance from the various caseworkers to ensure that his children are kept with him. [ 11 ] Given the parties’ agreement, the evidence adduced and the importance for the child to develop in a stable and secure environment with her father, and given the services that will be provided to the parents during the period of this order, [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger; [ 14 ] KEEPS the child X in the father’s family environment, to the exclusion of the mother, for a period of six months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that contact between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards its duration and frequency and the presence of a third party; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the mother undergo therapy to treat her alcohol dependency and violence problem; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the father take

part in post-therapy follow-up for his dependency, substance abuse problem and violence problem; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the social follow-up provided to them; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for the child and youth protection centre provide aid, counselling and assistance to the parents and their child for a period of 18 months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents undergo therapy to treat their emotional dependency and improve their relationship as a couple; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the order. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC J.C.Q. Mtre. Valérie Martel Counsel for the petitioner Mtre. Claude Cossette Counsel for the father Mtre.

Claude Beaudet Counsel for the mother Mtre. Sylvie Roy Counsel for the child Date of hearing: June 26, 2013