2015 QCCQ 10137, 2015 QCCQ 10137

Protection de la jeunesse — 151476 2015 QCCQ 10137 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-024841-116; 525-41-024842-114; 525-41-024855-116 DATE : June 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...] Y, born on [...] Z, born on [...] THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on June 9 th , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision of a decision rendered by Honourable Guy Lecompte on October 1 st , 2014. The Director is asking that all three children be placed in a foster family until their age of majority. The paternal aunt of the children has been positively assessed and is therefore recognized as a foster family.

The Director is also requesting that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents for the same period of time. [ 3 ] The mother admits essentially all the facts alleged in the motion concerning her situation and that of the children. She is opposed to the request made by the Director. She wishes that all three daughters be progressively reintegrated in her care as quickly as possible. She hopes the reintegration would be completed by mid-August 2015. [ 4 ] The father admits the facts alleged in the motion pertaining to his situation and that of his daughters.

He agrees, for now, that the children continue to live with their paternal aunt but considers that a court order until majority is too long. He would like that the children be entrusted to his care, possibly in a year. [ 5 ] All three girls are represented by the same attorney. The children admit to be doing well in the care of their paternal aunt.

[ 6 ] The eldest daughter does not want to take position and say clearly where she would like to stay. If she stays with her aunt, she would much prefer that the decision be for a period of one year and would like to have the permission to have sleepovers at her mother's place. [ 7 ] The second daughter has the same position as her older sister. The period of the time of the Court order was not discussed with her. [ 8 ] As to the youngest girl, the lawyer did not discuss with her the issues at stake considering her young age. The lawyer adds that the child will follow her two older sisters.

CONTEXT [ 9 ] The evidence reveals indeed that the children are doing well in the care of their paternal aunt. Their needs are met. The girls get along well with their aunt and their cousins and enjoy spending time with them. [ 10 ] Nonetheless, the children have expressed to the youth protection worker their wish that a decision be made "one way or another" so that they know where they will be living.

They have expressed frustration with the different court orders extending their stay at their aunt's place and, according to their discussion with the worker, they are not convinced that a return to either parent is possible. [ 11 ] Although the father kept very regular and almost daily contact with his daughters during the fall of 2014, his sudden disappearance for a period of six weeks raised concerns for all involved. His own mother did not know where he was. The paternal aunt could not provide an answer to the children who were worried not to know where their father was.

The Director could not discuss with the father his sudden distance from his daughters. [ 12 ] During the Holiday season, the father finally resurfaced and presented himself at his sister's home to visit with the children. The paternal aunt denied him access as he was inebriated. [ 13 ] The father later admitted that he neglected to give any news to the Director, his children and his family during that period because he "needed time to reflect". [ 14 ] The father claims that he drinks alcohol but only socially.

He disagrees with family members who believe he should not even drink socially considering that he his a recovering alcoholic. [ 15 ] Since January 2015, the father is enrolled in an eighteen month school program. He has had little time to visit with his daughters and has seen them generally once per week. [ 16 ] On April 30 th , the father showed up at his sister's place for the anniversary of his oldest daughter. Unfortunately, once more, the father was intoxicated. His sister had to ask him to leave. He offered resistance and became aggressive.

He did not leave his sister's home before his daughters came back from school. [ 17 ] The day of Court, the father arrived late and gave explanations as to why. According to his sister who knows him well, the father was not sober.

When asked, he admitted to drinking four cans of beer early in the day. [ 18 ] Despite the hope of the father to have the children reintegrated to his care when he finish his school program, despite the fact that the father was able to keep regular contact for sometime with his daughters, it appears that the father is in no position, currently, to care for them. [ 19 ] His struggle with alcohol remains a threat to the stability and safety of the children.

The very issues that first led to the involvement of the Director of Youth Protection are still present. [ 20 ] The mother has maintained regular contacts with her children throughout the last court order. Up until April 30 th , 2015, she was welcome to visit her children, pretty well as often as she pleased, at the paternal aunt's place. [ 21 ] Following that date, she was no longer welcome.

On April 30 th , 2015, a few minutes after the aunt refused access to the father as he was not sober, the mother yelled at the aunt and called her names, in the presence of the three children and the children of the paternal aunt. [ 22 ] The worker explains that the situation of the mother remains primarily unchanged. Although the mother followed parenting courses she is unable to say what she has learned from the program. [ 23 ] The mother put an end to her therapy sessions since February. She cannot explain why.

Although she claims she now has resumed therapy, no appointments are set. [ 24 ] Following the last court order, the expectations were made very clearly to the mother. Unfortunately, it took months before the mother finally accepted to include some activities when visiting the children. [ 25 ] In order for the Director to allow the children to spend overnights with their mother, the mother was asked to purchase one extra bed to accommodate all three girls. The request was made in the fall of 2014. The day of court, the mother proudly says that she has had the extra bed since May 2015.

She has not informed the Director that she has fulfilled that requirement and cannot explain why she kept that information to herself. [ 26 ] The mother wishes for her daughters to be reintegrated home but has failed to renew her lease and has not found yet another apartment. It is unclear if the mother has started looking for another apartment but she has to leave her current one within three weeks. [ 27 ] It is also unclear if the parents are still in a relationship together. It seems that the father has hopes to reunite with the mother. It is unclear if the mother shares the same dreams.

Considering the issues of conjugal violence that led to the initial involvement of the

Director, the parents have decisions to make and to share with the Director. [ 28 ] The evidence reveals that neither parent is in a position to care for their daughters. The children will therefore continue to live with their paternal aunt. [ 29 ] As to the length of the court order, the Court has to consider that the children have been removed from their parents' care since April 2013. The Court is not bound by the maximum duration of placement of

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act as the children were, up until now, entrusted to their paternal aunt and not fostered in a foster family. [ 30 ] The decision to be rendered must, nonetheless, aim at ensuring that the children benefit from continuity of care, stable relationships with their parents and their aunt as well as stable living conditions. [ 31 ] The parents' involvement is encouraged and possible as they are welcome to visit with their daughters at the aunt's home.

They can exercise their parental responsibilities and can be provided with help from the Director and some guidance from the aunt in order to do so. [ 32 ] As returning with either parent is currently impossible and not foreseeable in near future, the decision must ensure continuity and offer permanency to the children. [ 33 ] In their best interest, they must be reassured that their paternal aunt, the only care-giver who met their needs on a day-to-day basis for more than two years, will continue to do so until their age of majority. [ 34 ] Under the circumstances, the Director has established the necessity for continued intervention and that the security and development of the children are still compromised.

The recommended measures meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest. AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 36 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family until their age of majority; [ 37 ] DESIGNATES the foster parent to be Mrs.

C , the paternal aunt of the children; [ 38 ] ORDERS the parents to fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] The contacts between the children and their parents will take place following an entente between the parties; if there is no entente, ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection set the modalities of these contacts and SETS minimally the frequency at once (1) per week; [ 40 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family until they reach their age of majority, respectively; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Agnes Unterberg Attorney for the child Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the mother Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the father Date of hearing : June 9 th , 2015