2017 QCCQ 18491, 2017 QCCQ 18491

Protection de la jeunesse — 178917 2017 QCCQ 18491 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000256-174 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 38 and 75 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 of A (D.Y.P.) submits to the Court an application asking that the security and development of X, 16 years old, be declared in danger because of her parent’s neglection in their supervision of the youth and because of the serious risk of neglect (section38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ). [ 2 ] At the hearing the mother is present with her lawyer Me Michel Grenier.

She admits all the allegations and agrees with the recommendations. [ 3 ] The youth is assisted by Me Constantin Kiryakidis. She admits few allegations and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent. He received the motion by his mother who lives close of him. She informed the applicant that she personally informed her son of the legal procedure and the date of the hearing and gave him all the papers she received.

As the father is not really involved in the life of X and as the Court accepts such proof of service, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The situation of X is known by the D.Y.P. since few years. Last July 7, 2016 she was placed in a reception centre for nine months and social follow-up was ordered for a year.

The youth reintegrated to her mother’s care on May 3, 2017 and her file was close at the end of the social follow-up ordered on July 7, 2017. [ 6 ] Few days after, on July 11, 2017 a new signalment was done to the D.Y.P. to the effect that the mother was consuming alcohol in the home along with other adults, in the presence of X’s sibling, Y and Z [ 7 ] The mother and her common law spouse, Mr.

C, consumed alcohol on numerous occasions during the month of July 2017. [ 8 ] The child Y declared that he saw his mother drinking and consuming cocaine. [ 9 ] On July 20, 2017 police was called to the home because of an altercation between the mother and Mr. C. When the police arrived, the mother and her partner were drinking and cocaine was found on the premises. The frequency of the mother’s consumption of cocaine remains unknown. [ 10 ] Mr. C was arrested and detained on the same day and accused of assault on the mother. [ 11 ] X is pregnant. She only attend one prenatal appointment.

The father is not involved with the youth. Immediate protective measures were invoked on July 12, 2017 but the youth refused and had been living in the home of her boyfriend. He consumes alcohol.

On August 9, the youth agreed to be placed in a foster home. [ 12 ] With such evidence, the Court believes that the D.Y.P. failed providing the services the youth was entitled to receive and this situation justifies an investigation by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droit de la jeunesse. [ 13 ] The youth was previously placed in foster home, the one of her grandmother. She went and lived with her boyfriend at his parents’ place and nor the mother nor the D.Y.P. intervened.

Now she has a baby and the D.Y.P. asks that once her situation is declared in danger, that she returned in the foster home of her grandmother where the mother also lives since the serious assault she was victim of, from her partner. [ 14 ] The youth admitted all the allegations and agrees with the measures if it is a placement with her child at her grandmother’s place. [ 15 ] The social worker testifies that the grandmother is able to impose rules to the youth and provides her a secure and safe environment. Mrs.

D testifies also that X takes good care of her baby and that she needs to be closed of her mother. [ 16 ] Mrs. A acknowledges that she needs to attend again treatment for her drugs and alcohol consumption. She wants now to concentrate on her children, including X, and she declares that her relationship with Mr. C is finished. [ 17 ] The reasons of X’s compromission now are because of the mother’s neglect towards X and the serious risk that the youth’s needs will not be provided.

As X just gave birth in September, she does not consume now and no behavioural problems are proved, as they were detailed in the last judgment. [ 18 ] Consequently, as the father is not involved in X’s life, as the mother is unable to provide a stable and secure home and to answer the youth’s needs, the Court declares the security and development of X in danger and for the measures, orders her placement in a foster family until her majority. Her maturity and autonomy have to be developed and consequently, structures should be provided to her.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2001, are in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS her placement in a foster family chosen by the D.Y.P. until her majority; [ 22 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and her mother until the youth’s majority and to offer such services to the father if he requires them; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help for her toxicomania through the social services; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to investigate the interventions done by the D.Y.P. in X’s situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Constantin Kiryakidis Attorney for the youth Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 12, 2017