2020 QCCQ 13598, 2020 QCCQ 13598

Protection de la jeunesse — 209361 2020 QCCQ 13598 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002537-204 DATE: November 23, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 18, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraph (b) (1) iii of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the child to a foster family until September 30, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered, but she contests the recommended measures and asks her child to be back under her care immediately. [ 4 ] Despite being duly served, the father is absent and not represented.

Considering the consent of the parties and the best interest of the child, the Court proceed in the absence of the father. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits to the Court that the situation of the child is endangered for the alleged grounds and that the recommended measures are in her best interest. Facts [ 6 ] The situation of the parents is known from the DYP as the mother has an older daughter entrusted until the majority to a foster family.

This placement was necessary because of the mother’s alcohol consumption. [ 7 ] X was born prematurely on [...], 2019. The mother and the baby were medevaced to Town A to ensure the child’s safety. She was born with very important health issues (heart malformation and vocal cord granuloma). She had an open heart surgery and treatment and remained hospitalized until April 2020. [ 8 ] The DYP received and retain a report regarding a situation of serious risk of neglect due to the mother’s substance abuse.

The DYP had received a report about mother’s consumption during the pregnancy, and the mother was highly intoxicated two days before the birth. [ 9 ] On March 30, the parents reached a verbal agreement with the DYP during the evaluation process. They agreed to have a third party present all the time in their house. [ 10 ] On April 6, the parents signed voluntary measures for a period of one year. The child remained with them, but a third party was supposed to be present in the house as long as the situation requires it.

[ 11 ] Unannounced visits were performed and nothing wrong was noted until June 1, 2020, when the parents informed the DYP that the third party was not there anymore because he had started to drink. The parents told the DYP that they feel comfortable to take care alone of the baby and they really want to remain sober as they do since the baby is back in the community. The grandmother committed herself to be a reliable safety net and confirmed being available to support and babysit anytime it would be needed. [ 12 ] On July 17, a police intervention was done at the parent’s place.

The mother was highly intoxicated, but the child was with a babysitter. The day after, the parents confirmed that they had resumed their consumption, but took steps before drinking to ensure the child’s safety. [ 13 ] On August 8, the mother was seen intoxicated again. A meeting took place the day after to remind them about the risk of their consumption on their child, and the parents confirmed that they had a babysitter. [ 14 ] On September 6, the DYP made an unannounced visit at home. The parents were highly intoxicated and unable to tell where their daughter was.

The DYP worker went to the grandmother’s place who was also highly intoxicated. She said that they gave the baby to someone, but she was unable to tell who. The DYP worker asked her to come with her to look at that place. The place was an unsafe one because some people who are living there are followed by the DYP services for sexual abuse on children. The child was entrusted to a foster family. [ 15 ] Two days after, the parents were met and the father said that this placement was a “wake-up call.” He wanted to attend Social Services and to receive help.

The mother was reluctant to meet with the Social Services, but would agree to do it for her daughter’s best interest. [ 16 ] On September 19 and 21, the mother was again intoxicated and an immediate protective measure was taken for a second time. [ 17 ] On September 22, during a meeting, the father’s position had changed and he considered at that time that he and his wife do not display alcohol consumption issues and doing so, they do not need help. Because of this change, the voluntary measure was not applicable anymore.

The mother on her side continued to recognize the situation of endangerment and agreed to maintain the voluntary measures. [ 18 ] On September 23, the DYP try to meet the parents about the provisional application hearing, planned for the next day, but they were both highly intoxicated. On September 24, the Court entrusted the child to a foster family and the parents were absent. [ 19 ] During the three following weeks, many attempts were made to meet the parents, but they were always unavailable or too intoxicated.

After that, the parents started to get better for a while, but unfortunately, the situation degenerated again recently. [ 20 ] The report mentions: It is clear to our services that both parents have a strong attachment to their daughter and want what is best for the child. When sober, both parents display an adequate level of care to the infant. Despite this, the level of consumption within the home is extremely high and when intoxicated the parents can remain in this state for several days in a row.

This results in them being unreachable by our services and therefore not available to care for their daughter. [ 21 ] The child is described as calm and expressive. She is very attached to her parents and react very positively when she sees them. She requires a medical follow-up at least every three months, but her situation improved a lot. [ 22 ] Since the beginning of the placement, the parents did not mobilize themselves to benefit from all the access they could have with the child, mostly because they were intoxicated. On the child’s birthday, the parents were collaborative and sober.

Doing so, a home visit was authorized. The house was clean and everything went well. The parents were also collaborative when it had been time to return the child to the specialized foster family. [ 23 ] The responsible for the specialized foster family complained that the child smelled marijuana when she comes back and that her diet had not always been respected by the parents. The parents are aware of the medical recommendations regarding the diet as they are generally present during the medial appointments. Analysis [ 24 ] The parents’ history of alcohol consumption is very concerning.

They were able to maintain sobriety from April to June 2020 and did very well during that period. Unfortunately, they relapse and they put their very vulnerable daughter at risk. Also, they changed their position about their willingness to improve their situation and do not recognize any issues. [ 25 ] Without addressing their issues properly and seriously, the situation will not improve by itself. And without improvement, the parents will remain unable to answer the needs of their young child.

Moreover, their daughter has very specific needs, which requires a high level of involvement from the parents. [ 26 ] Considering all the circumstances of the situation, the child is actually in a situation of endangerment under

section 38 (b) (1) iii. [ 27 ] For her safety and her well-being, the child should remain entrusted to foster care, but a gradual reintegration will be authorized. Indeed, the parents were able to remain sober for a while. With a good willingness and the professional help, the parents are able to improve their situation and to resume the care of their daughter. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application;

[ 29 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to file the birth certificate of the child upon reception; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraph (b) (1) iii of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of the parents as soon as the situation allows it; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES a minimal frequency of contacts between the child and the parents of three times a week. [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the medical services and the medical cares that she need; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 23, 2020