2017 QCCQ 17172, 2017 QCCQ 17172

Protection de la jeunesse — 177656 2017 QCCQ 17172 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 614-41-000240-178 614-41-000241-176 DATE: October 13, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X born on [...], 2014 Y born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, district A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City B, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection applied to have the security and development of the children X, born on [...], 2014 and Y, born on [...], 2013, declared in danger due to risk of neglect of their basic needs under

section 38 ( b ) (1) ii) of the Youth Protection Act and lack of supervision by the parents under

section 38( b )(1)iii) of that Act. [ 2 ] Both parents were present and represented by their respective lawyers. They admitted some of the allegations in the application. The mother did not agree with the recommendation to entrust the children to a foster family. She proposed that the children be entrusted to her mother. [ 3 ] The Court considered there is a preponderant evidence of the following facts: − The mother has a substance abuse issue and she stated she is afraid to attend a treatment program outside her community.

She is worried about being far from her family and not comfortable being with people she does not know; − On June 25, 2017, the police intervened at the grandmother’s home while she was out of the community because the mother and her brother were intoxicated and engaged in a physical fight at her residence. The children were sleeping when the situation occurred and it was decided that immediate protective measures would be taken for their safety; − The father is not in a situation to take care of his children.

In fact, on June 15, 2017, he had X under his care and left her at the mother’s home without the presence of an adult. He called the maternal grandmother to inform her that he was leaving the child at the mother’s home; − On June 26, 2017, the mother was heavily intoxicated and passed out during a house fire. She was dragged outside the house by a member of the community who was passing by. She had to be hospitalized in Chibougamau; − The mother is in a state of distress. She lost her best friend due to alcohol consumption and overdose. She saw a psychologist who comes to her community regularly.

She has been sober for one month. She has realized the impact of substance abuse in her life, particularly since the death of her friend.

[ 4 ] The Court considers that the evidence is preponderant that the security and development of the two vulnerable children are in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (2) of the Youth Protection Act because of the mother’s lifestyle and the incapacity of the father to take care of them. [ 5 ] The evidence also shows a lack of supervision on the part of the father, who left his young daughter, who is less than three years old, unsupervised at her mother’s home. Given that evidence, the Court declares that the security and development of the children are in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (1) iii) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 6 ] The Court must decide what will be the applicable measures to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children is endangered. The main consideration is the best interest of the children. [ 7 ] The maternal grandmother, C, has requested to have her granddaughters under her care. Ms. C seems to be a very good person, who tries to help all the members of her family. She welcomes the mother’s children and her brother into her home. Her son was there temporarily for medical follow-up.

She is willing to ask him to go elsewhere to live so she can have care of her grandchildren. [ 8 ] The evidence shows that there is a serious issue of housing in the community A. The mother, A, has no specific place to stay. She mentioned that it will be possible to live with friends without any specific arrangements. [ 9 ] The Court does not believe that it will be possible for her to stay with friends for a long period of time without any specific arrangements. Perhaps it would be possible for few weeks but after that period the grandmother would be confronted with her daughter’s distress.

The grandmother is also a mother who cares for her children, who are struggling with personal issues. [ 10 ] When assessing the situation as a whole, the Court must considered the fact that the situation that endangered the security and development of the children occurred at the grandmother’s residence in the presence of the mother. [ 11 ] The Court believes that the grandmother can be an asset for her grandchildren. She can make it possible for the mother to have her children for visits under the grandmother’s supervision on a regular basis.

With the supervision of the grandmother, and under specific conditions, it could be possible to envision such contact for few days. The situation will have to be evaluated by the Director of Youth Protection with the collaboration of the mother and the grandmother. [ 12 ] The Court wants to underline the importance for young children to be in regular touch with the members of their family.

Yet, the evidence shows that it is not an option to entrust the children to their maternal grandmother without a real plan for the mother to live elsewhere for a certain period of time. [ 13 ] Currently the mother receives help for her personal issues through follow-up with a psychologist once month. The Court hopes that the mother will stay on that path so that she will be ready to attend a treatment center for her substance abuse issue. [ 14 ] Given the evidence as a whole, the Court considers the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection appropriate and in the best interest of the children.

FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2014, and Y, born on [...], 2013, are in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in a foster home for a period of nine months with possible reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and conditions of contact between the children and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection, and with the supervision of a third party, if necessary; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the maternal grand-mother be considered a resource to permit contact between the children with the mother, under the conditions set out by the Director of Youth protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the children at all times; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the children receive all of the medical and dental services required by their situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother continue her psychological follow-up and follow the recommendations of the professional; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to any individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol during visits; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet with the worker upon request; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother take the necessary steps to obtain services for her alcohol and drug issues, including a treatment program; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the family for a period of 18 months; [ 27 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Yan Massé Counsel for the children Mtre. Camille Champeval Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother Mtre. Michel Grenier Counsel for the father Date of hearing: August 15, 2017