2013 QCCQ 9176, 2013 QCCQ 9176

Protection de la jeunesse — 132350 2013 QCCQ 9176 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001551-131 640-41-001552-139 DATE: April 29, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in A CITY Applicant and X, born on […], 2008 Y, born on […], 2011 Children and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant addressed the Court, asking that the security and development of X and Y, four years old and one respectively, be declared in danger. [ 2 ] At the hearing, all the parties were represented by attorneys, and only the children were absent, given their young age. [ 3 ] While there was agreement as to the child X’s endangerment and the adequate measure concerning her, there was disagreement as to who should be entrusted with Y. [ 4 ] From the point of view of the youth protection authorities, Y should be placed with a foster family, but the mother and father feel that the father is able to take care of him. [ 5 ] The evidence heard and the admissions made at the hearing, in addition to the exhibits filed in the records, essentially reveal the following. [ 6 ] As mentioned above, two children were born of the parties' union, for whom the mother was the main caregiver following the parties' separation. [ 7 ] After the separation, the father was regularly present in the children's lives, but they never really lived with him. [ 8 ] For her part, the mother had been experiencing problems with alcohol use for some time, and the problems worsened to the point where she was no longer able to supervise her children adequately. [ 9 ] Voluntary measures were therefore agreed on in July 2012, under which the children remained with their mother, with the parents promising to be sober in the children's presence and to take steps to resolve the problem. [ 10 ] But the situation appears to have remained essentially the same, and the youth protection authorities have had to intervene repeatedly because the mother was intoxicated. [ 11 ] In January, that situation led to the conclusion of new voluntary measures, this time providing for placement with a foster family. [ 12 ] As mentioned earlier, the parties agree that the reasons causing the state of endangerment persist and that X's best interest dictates her placement with a foster family—which is currently at the home of her great-grandmother.

[ 13 ] As for Y, the applicant asked for an order placing him with a foster family as well, whereas the parents want him to be entrusted to the father. [ 14 ] In the opinion of the youth protection authorities, the latter solution is not appropriate because Mr.

B has had sporadic contact with his son and offers limited cooperation to the workers assigned to the case. [ 15 ] They therefore undertook to find a foster family that could take the child in for a period of six months, but their attempts to date have not met with success. [ 16 ] The objective of placing Y with a member of the extended family failed, and now the possibility is being examined of placing him with a member of the mother's family in the community A, whereas all the parties concerned live in City A. [ 17 ] The parents are absolutely against that solution, as they feel that the father is currently able to take care of the child. [ 18 ] The father lives with his own parents and other family members in a house that could easily accommodate a child of that age. [ 19 ] While the father admits that he has never lived permanently with his son, he points out that, on more than one occasion, when the mother was unable to take care of the children, the youth protection authorities themselves entrusted the children to him. [ 20 ] So he does not understand why he would not be able to take charge of Y and play his role as father. [ 21 ] In short, the evidence shows that the Court has two options in the case of Y. [ 22 ] It can either take the route presented by the youth protection authorities and place the child with a foster family, which the steps taken to date have not produced, or it can entrust the child to his father, with whom he has never lived permanently since his birth. [ 23 ] As explained orally at the hearing, the choice is self-evident in the circumstances. [ 24 ] It would actually be quite illogical not to consider the option put forth by one of the parents, who is able to provide an acceptable environment for a child of that age. [ 25 ] Even if the applicant is right in saying that that option could end in failure, it is nonetheless clearly the option that must be favoured. [ 26 ] It would obviously be unfortunate if the placement were to fail, but it would certainly be worse not to try it when no foster family has yet been identified to take care of Y. [ 27 ] As the father has demonstrated that he has the necessary aptitudes to take care of Y, his son should be entrusted to him. [ 28 ] As also mentioned at the hearing, it is nonetheless essential that he cooperate with the youth protection authorities so that the placement will be successful. [ 29 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2008, and Y, born on […], 2011, are endangered; [ 32 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family for a period of six months, with reintegration with the mother, if the situation allows; [ 33 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to his father for a period of six months; [ 34 ] ORDERS that all contact between the siblings and the parents be encouraged and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober when they are with the children; [ 36 ] ORDERS the parties to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS the parties to meet with the Director of Youth Protection, if the latter considers it necessary; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their parents; [ 39 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X, born on […], 2008, and Y, born on […], 2011, to the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., who shall see to the execution of this order. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Counsel for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the children Me Sarah Plamondon Counsel for the mother Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the father Date of hearing: March 13, 2013