2013 QCCQ 11904, 2013 QCCQ 11904

Protection de la jeunesse — 133940 2013 QCCQ 11904 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division Nos. 640-41-001387-114 640-41-001388-112 DATE: July 22, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A Applicant and X , residing and domiciled in Town B, district A, Québec and Y , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A, Québec Children and A , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A, Québec Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A, Québec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking the Court to review the decision rendered by the Honourable Denyse Leduc J.C.Q. at the August 28, 2012 hearing.

In her decision, she maintained that the security and development of X and Y A were in danger within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act , and entrusted them to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 2 ] Given that the case was called a few times and that it was impossible to proceed for various reasons, the hearing did not take place until June 4 and 5, 2013. [ 3 ] On that occasion, the parents were present and represented.

Given their young age, the children were not present, but were represented. [ 4 ] The applicant recommends that the children be entrusted to a foster family until they each reach full age, to which the parents strongly object.

In their opinion, the children should be returned to them. [ 5 ] From the evidence heard and the various documents contained in the record, the Court notes essentially the following. [ 6 ] The youth protection authorities have been involved with the family for some time because of serious marital and drinking problems. [ 7 ] In her judgment, which reviewed an earlier decision, the Honourable Denyse Leduc J.C.Q. described the situation at that time. [ 8 ] The judgment indicates that excessive drinking created a situation in which the parents could not take adequate care of the children, who were two and four years old. [ 9 ] In her decision, Leduc J. also noted that, although they said they intended to correct the situation, the parents had not taken any steps to do so. [ 10 ] The conclusion of her judgment clearly explains where things stood, and should be cited. 8.

Consequently, the Court will order the children’s placement in a foster family for six months giving the last chance to the parents to work on their personal and marital problems. This decision is based on

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act, and at the expiration of the six-month placement of the children, if the parents’ situation is still problematic, the Court will have to make an order at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions. [ sic ]

[ 11 ] At the hearing, through their testimony and that of the social worker, C, the parents tried to show that they complied with the above recommendation and made significant changes in their life, with the result that they are now in a position to take their children back. [ 12 ] The evidence adduced, which is uncontradicted on several points, tends to show that they are at least partially right. [ 13 ] In fact, they both stated that they have not had a drink since November 2012, and this seems to be the case. [ 14 ] Since that time, they have not been involved in any incident that has required the intervention of the authorities. [ 15 ] Driven mainly by their desire to regain custody of their two children, they took steps with the social services of their community in March 2013, and they say they are prepared to continue with them. [ 16 ] Ms.

C confirmed that, in fact, eight meetings have been held to date, during which certain problems were discussed. [ 17 ] Although the parents’ cooperation was at first limited, to say the least, it seems that it has considerably improved, as has their attendance. [ 18 ] When asked whether she believes that the parents have remained sober, Ms.

C answered that she has no reason to doubt it. [ 19 ] With regard to their half-hearted cooperation with the youth protection authorities, the Court notes from their testimony that, although their cooperation was adequate at first, it subsequently greatly deteriorated. [ 20 ] The parents explained that a conflict arose with the caseworker at the time, who, in their opinion, had a brusque and disrespectful attitude. [ 21 ] The arrival of a new person in charge of the case seems to have restored the situation to normal and allowed for constructive cooperation. [ 22 ] Circumstances are such that the parents have had very different contact with Y and X. [ 23 ] Y was placed with a family in the community of Town A, with the result that frequent contact has been maintained. [ 24 ] At present, the little boy goes to his parents’ home at least twice a week, and everything seems to go well. [ 25 ] The foster mother explained that the child is happy to see his parents and says he wants to return to them. [ 26 ] She did not note any behaviour that seems inadequate to her; he gets along well with his parents. [ 27 ] At the hearing, she said she now has reservations about Y’s being placed in her home until he reaches full age.

She is no longer sure about wanting to be part of such a plan given that the child and his parents want to be reunited. [ 28 ] X has been placed with a foster family in the community of City A since August 2012, as a temporary domicile could not be found in her home community. [ 29 ] That situation has made contact extremely complicated, with the result that there has been no contact since December 2012. [ 30 ] The evidence shows that the child is well integrated into her current foster family of mixed A origin―B and C―.

In fact, the evidence shows that she has developed a strong bond of attachment with the family. [ 31 ] Her parents explained that they still firmly hope to have their daughter back, and added that there has not been more contact mainly because of the distance and the fact that cooperation with the youth protection authorities was difficult. [ 32 ] They in fact criticized the authorities for not having brought the child back to Town A on the three dates initially set to hear the motion. [ 33 ] The foster mother’s testimony revealed that, even though she asked whether she should take the little girl with her on those occasions, she was told it was not necessary. [ 34 ] The Court believes that the situation of endangerment must be maintained and none of the parties vigorously contested that point.

The steps taken by the parents are still recent, all things considered, whereas the history of drinking and marital problems is particularly long.

Hence, the Court cannot purely and simply conclude that there is no situation of endangerment. [ 35 ] Regarding the measures to be applied, even though the parents have not fully complied with the previous recommendations to resolve their problems, they nonetheless heard the ultimatum of Leduc J. and made significant changes. [ 36 ] However, it is indispensable that cooperation with both social services and the youth protection authorities continue, and the parents’ commitment in that regard remains essential. [ 37 ] In the circumstances, the return of Y to his parents is not a distant prospect.

Despite the duration of the placement, he has had frequent contact with his parents and has kept a meaningful bond with them. Hence, a gradual return is conceivable.

[ 38 ] X’s situation is more complex. The child, who is two-and-a-half years old, has been placed in the same foster family since August 2012 and has clearly become attached to the family. [ 39 ] Contact with her parents is currently non-existent for various reasons.

The first reason is obviously the distance separating the communities, which are not easily reached. [ 40 ] The second reason is the absence of steps by the parents to go see their daughter, which was due in part at least, according to the father, to the conflict between them and the youth protection authorities. [ 41 ] The third reason is linked to the fact that the youth protection authorities also did not take any steps whatsoever to encourage contact between the child and her parents. [ 42 ] In the present case, on the basis of the parents’ attitude, the caseworkers did not try to encourage contact with the parents. [ 43 ] Although the caseworker who testified rightly said that a courthouse is not a place for a child that age, the three occasions when the case was before the Court should have been used to allow contact. [ 44 ] The Court is of the opinion that, without determining specific responsibility, the situation may be attributed to all the parties involved. [ 45 ] In the circumstances, is it appropriate to allow the applicant’s request and order that the child be placed until she reaches full age? [ 46 ] If the Court were to conclude that it is, it would be strictly in an effort not to break the bond of attachment she has developed with her current foster family since, on the whole, the preponderant evidence indicates that, under certain conditions, the parents are able to take care of her. [ 47 ] There is no guarantee that this course of action will be without hazard or difficulty and will be successful, but it is nonetheless the only solution in the current situation. [ 48 ] How can one justify not returning the young girl to her parents when they complied, at least in part, with what was required of them? [ 49 ] It is true that the return will be a major upheaval for the child, but it is nevertheless consistent with the objectives set out in the Act, namely, reintegration into the family when conceivable within an acceptable timeframe. [ 50 ] Hence, placement will continue for a period of five months with a view to gradually rebuilding the relationship between the child and her parents and to creating the conditions conducive to her permanent return. [ 51 ] It is thus necessary that the youth protection authorities have the latitude needed to make sure that the operation is carried out smoothly. [ 52 ] However, the parents must keep in mind that they have to participate in the measures and cooperate with the youth protection authorities. [ 53 ] Should they revert to the previous pattern, they would be back to square one, not to mention the harm that this would cause X. [ 54 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 55 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 56 ] REVISES the decision rendered on August 28, 2012 by judge Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q.; [ 57 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X et de Y , born respectively on […], 2012 and […], 2009, are still endangered; [ 58 ] ORDERS the placement of Y in a foster family for a period of four months with a progressive reintegration as soon as the situation allows it; [ 59 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family for a period of five months with a progressive reintegration as soon as the situation allows it; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be supervised by the director; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober and abstain from consuming alcohol in the presence of their children; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the DYP, in particular by attending the meetings set by this one; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the parents continue their meetings with social services as long as the social worker considers it appropriate to do so; [ 64 ] ORDERS that a worker from the DYP provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and to their parents for a period of one year;

[ 65 ] ORDERS that the parents take and active

part in the application in any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 66 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measure is carried out; [ 67 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of this enactment. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS J.C.Q. M e Robert-André Adam Counsel for the applicant M e Cassandra Neptune Counsel for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Counsel for the mother M e Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: June 4, 2013 June 5, 2013