2013 QCCQ 12494, 2013 QCCQ 12494

Protection de la jeunesse — 133589 2013 QCCQ 12494 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001576-138 and 640-41-001577-136 DATE: July 17, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2010 Y, born on […] 2011 [INTERVENANTE 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Ville A, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […], Ville A, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection A asked that the security and development of X, born on […], 2010, and Y, born on […], 2011, be declared in danger with regard to

section 38 (b) (1) (i), (2) and (d) (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The children's parents were present at the hearing, assisted by Me Ratha Heang. Me Yan Massé represented the children and Me Gabriel Gaudreault represented the applicant. [ 3 ] At first, the petitioner withdrew the motive of compromission according to

section 38 (d) (2) of the Youth Protection Act , acknowledging being unable to make evidence beyond the balance of probabilities. [ 4 ] The parents admitted the allegations and acknowledged that the security and development of their children were in danger for neglect, but they disagreed with the measures recommended. [ 5 ] The evidence showed the following facts. [ 6 ] The parents do not live together. The father lives in […] and works at [Company A]. The mother lives in […] and is the main caregiver of the children. She is unable to provide proper care to them.

The children display signs of malnutrition and developmental delay. X has a fragile health, notably a severe iron deficiency anemia. Last March 11, he was transferred to the Hospital A because he was displaying severe respiratory distress. The mother escorted X in City A and remained with him for a few weeks. On the same day, Y was entrusted to a foster family. [ 7 ] The mother was overwhelmed by the situation. The medical evaluation of X disclosed a possible sexual abuse.

The children's situation was under investigation, but the Director of Youth Protection is not in a position to meet his onus of evidence. [ 8 ] Consequently, the Court declared the security and development of the children in danger because of neglect. Their parents do not meet the children's basis needs (section 38 (b)

(1) Y.P.A. ). [ 9 ] At the applicable measures inquiry, a social study is filed and the social worker and the parents testified. [ 10 ] Evidence reveals that X is still under medical attention and Y is in a foster family. X was discharged from the Hospital A on May 28, 2013 to be transferred to Maison A in B City to help him to get stronger. Y is going well in his foster family and has regular visits of his parents. They visit him three times a week for half an hour. On both children, scars of neglect are still present.

[ 11 ] The parents' situation improves. They are looking for jobs in the community A. Now, the father wants to help the mother and diminishes his consumption of alcohol. Both parents need to develop parental skills. They must learn how to provide their children's needs. [ 12 ] Considering the evidence, the Court orders the children's placement in foster homes for a period of nine months with supervised visit rights with their parents. Such duration of placement should be sufficient for the parents to stabilise their situation and to develop their parental capacities.

Their collaboration and motivation are required to acquire those skills in such delay.

At this stage, a psychological assessment of the parents would be extremely helpful for the social worker assigned to the social follow-up. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence, [ 14 ] THE COURT: [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are in danger; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of X and Y in foster homes for a period of nine months with possible reintegration with their parents when their situation will allow it; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children receive all the medical and psychological services they required; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of one year; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to actively collaborate with the social worker; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents be assessed by a psychologist and that they receive a follow-up if required; [ 21 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 22 ] 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 Ratha Heang, attorney for the parents Me Yan Massé, attorney for the children Date of hearing: June 11, 2013