2017 QCCQ 2013, 2017 QCCQ 2013

Protection de la jeunesse — 17682 2017 QCCQ 2013 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000559-120 610-41-000560-128 DATE: February 24, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2009 Y , born on [...], 2011 [Social Worker] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district A (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town C, district A (Quebec) [...] Father of X ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (« Director ») asked the Court to review and extend the measures ordered for both children on June 8, 2016. On that date, the Court maintained that their security or development was still compromised according to the Youth Protection Act . As one of the measures, the Court entrusted both children to their maternal grandmother Mrs. C for a period of six months.

Other measures were ordered as well for twelve months. [ 2 ] According to the Director the review and extension of the orders are necessary because it is still not possible to return the children to their parents. Both parents still struggle with their drug and alcohol addiction problems. [ 3 ] If the Court grants the application concerning the children, the Director ask it to entrust them until they reach the age of majority to their grandmother Mrs. C who already takes care of them. [ 4 ] Both parents are absent. According to Mrs.

D, who is in charge of the files of the children, the parents’ situation did not change. [ 5 ] Both of them have received the Court documents. Concerning the mother she has recently gone to a 20 day treatment program in Town D [Province A]. However she relapsed in November. Since January 11, 2017, she is serving a jail sentence in Town E until February 24. The mother did not contact Mrs. D. As for the father, he is currently living in Town F once again with the same girlfriend. He runs back to her when he is not with the mother of the children. Mrs. D is not aware of the father exact address.

She spoke with him during fall and he told her that he was agreeing with her recommendations concerning the applicable measures for both children. [ 6 ] The Court grants the permission to the parties to proceed even if the parents are absent. The Court concludes that it is in the best interest of the children to proceed today. The facts [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 8 ] The parents have had a very unstable and unhealthy relationship for many years.

The father often returned to live with his extended family in Town C and has also being known to stay in Town F for short periods with a woman he has been dating. [ 9 ] Both parents continue to struggle with their drug and alcohol addictions. Furthermore, there continues to be violence and criminal activity from both parties. [ 10 ] On August 2, 2016, the father was charged with assault and was found guilty and has served six days in jail and was given a 12

months’ probation without supervision. On March 28 and on April 11, 2016, he was charged with failure to comply with his probation. [ 11 ] He continues to consume alcohol and drugs on several different occasions. He has not spoken of returning to treatment but said that he was receiving some help back in the spring when he was squatting in Town C. He told the Youth Protection’s worker that he is not worried for his children as he knows that they are in good hands with their maternal grandmother and they are doing well.

He sees them occasionally when he is in Town B. [ 12 ] The father does not maintain any contacts with the Youth Protection’s worker to keep his situation updated of any of the changes that may occur. However when he is in the area and sober he collaborates when he is contacted by the worker. [ 13 ] As for the mother, she is living at her mother’s home in Town B as she was on house arrest and probation. She went to a treatment center in Town D [Province A] for a 20 day program. [ 14 ] Recently the mother was charged with driving under the influence and served time from September 29 to October 7.

She had 30 more days of house arrest and she is now serving a jail term. [ 15 ] The mother maintains a good collaboration with the Youth Protection’s worker and reports to her when there is a change in her situation. [ 16 ] Y is a 5 year old little girl who now is attending her first year of elementary school in Town G Quebec. The child functions well at school and gets along with her classmates, she follows the routine well and her teacher’s instructions. [ 17 ] She is developing well in comparison with other children of the same age. She has no noted health problem and appears to be in good general health.

At home she also gets along with her other siblings. She generally listens to her parents and is respectful to her grandmother and her requests. [ 18 ] Y has recently expresses that she would like to continue living with her grandmother and all of her siblings. [ 19 ] X is a 6 year old boy who attends grade 2 at the elementary school in Town G. He is a little reserved at times and sometimes keeps to himself. He attends speech therapy once a month at his school and has shown improvement since he started last year. [ 20 ] He is well behaved in school and functions well.

He is also a good child at home and is often whiling to help others. His latest doctor’s visit gave him a clean bill of health. [ 21 ] The child maintains a good relationship with all of his siblings who live with him at their grandmother’s. Along with his grandmother and siblings X gets out often to fish and hunt during the appropriate seasons. He does not see his father very often as he and his mother maintain an off and on relationship. The child is always happy to see his father whenever he is around but he asks little about him.

As for his mother, he gets to see her daily unless she is out for any reasons. [ 22 ] The relationship between the mother and both children is significant. They have a bond and they see each other almost every day when the mother is there. [ 23 ] The relationship between the father and both children is weak. There is a bond however the time spent together is less than the time spent apart. [ 24 ] As for the maternal grandmother Mrs. C, she accepts to continue to provide for both children. Three other siblings live with her as well as they were entrusted to her.

The grandmother still works as the principal of the elementary school of her community. Decision [ 25 ] Both parents are happy that their children are being well cared for by the grandmother. They acknowledge that they have addictions to battle. The father is not ready to get the help needed to overcome these difficulties. The children were placed with their grandmother in June 2015, but were already living there. The grandmother accepts to continue to provide for them until they reach the age of majority. [ 26 ] The parents still have a very toxic relationship.

The Court concludes that the delays according to the Law are already reached. The current situation involving the parents and their lifestyle choices have not changed in any significant way nor have they maintained their sobriety long enough to be in a position to have their children back with them. Furthermore, the maximum time of placement is reached for both children. [ 27 ] Even if the grandmother has the responsibility of five children under her care, she has demonstrated and told the Court that she is able to handle the situation. She also said that the older children are at an age that they can be helpful.

The parents have been receiving services from Youth Protection since their children are very young. However the same recurring issues continue to escalate. [ 28 ] Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2009 and Y, born on [...], 2011, is still compromised under the Law. The Court also concludes that the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the children’s best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 29 ] GRANTS both motions; [ 30 ] MAINTAINS that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2009 and Y, born on [...], 2011, is still compromised under the law;

[ 31 ] ORDERS the following measures until the children reach the age of majority; [ 32 ] ORDERS that both children be entrusted to their maternal grandmother, Mrs. C; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the children, the mother and Mr. B; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B to not consume drugs or alcohol in the presence of the children; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B ensure that their children are not in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

B abstain from arguing in the presence of the children; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother, Mr. B and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and length; [ 38 ] ORDERS the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 39 ] entrusts the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q. Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the petitioner Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the children Date of hearing: January 24, 2017