2013 QCCQ 17785, 2013 QCCQ 17785

Protection de la jeunesse — 136152 2013 QCCQ 17785 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001522-124, 640-41-001523-122 and 640-41-001524-120 DATE: November 26, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2006 Y, born on […], 2007 Z, born on […], 2009 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled, in Town A, Quebec, District A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled, in Town B, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

section 95 ( par. 1) , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mrs [social worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of A, is asking the Court to review the last decisions rendered on March 27, 2013 concerning the situation of X(7 years old), Y(6 years old) and Z (3 ½ years old). For different motives, she is asking that the children remain with the father on specific conditions. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present, assisted by Me Clara Egervari (father) and Me Michel Grenier (mother).

The children are represented by Me Myriam Gaudreault. Me Gabriel Gaudreault assists the applicant. [ 3 ] The evidence of the new facts in support of the recommendations is based on the admissions of the parents and the review reports. [ 4 ] From the analysis of all the evidence, it is proven that the father attended a treatment centre from April 15 to May 7, 2013 until he was expelled. But he started a new session at a treatment centre from May 27 until July 4. Since, he attends AA meetings regularly and his situation improved. [ 5 ] The children reintegrated his home on July 18, 2013.

The father is able to take care of them and he provides very well for each of them. [ 6 ] The mother's situation remains the same. She lives in Town B at the women shelter. She still has problems for which she intends to attend treatment in Town C. The mother's collaboration is minimal. [ 7 ] The mother agrees with the recommendations.

As the father's situation improved but is still fragile, services will be provided to help him to increase his parental skills. [ 8 ] Considering the evidence, the agreement of the parents and the children's interest, [ 9 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y and Z are still in danger; [ 12 ] MAINTAINS the children with the father; [ 13 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children, the father and the mother

is she asks for it, for a period of six months; [ 14 ] ORDERS the father to follow all the recommendations made by the social worker, especially concerning AA or NNADAP follow-up; [ 15 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise all the contacts and visits of the mother with the children (duration, frequency and presence of a third party); [ 16 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present enactment; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the applicant Me Clara Egervari, attorney for the father Me Michel Grenier, attorney for the mother Me Myriam Gaudreault, attorney for the children Date of hearing: October 9, 2013