2017 QCCQ 14287, 2017 QCCQ 14287

Protection de la jeunesse — 176051 2017 QCCQ 14287 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001996-161, 640-41-001997-169 and 640-41-001998-167 DATE: September 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2000 Y, born on [...], 2005 Z, born on [...], 2009 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in City A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, actually detained in établissement de détention Leclerc, 400, Montée St-François in Laval, Quebec, District of Laval Mother and MR B residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 A C.Y.P.C. submits to the Court three motions asking for the revision of the decision rendered on October 12, 2016 concerning the situation of X, 17 years old, Y, 12 years old, and Z, 7 years old. [ 2 ] The applicant, Mrs [Social Worker 1], asks that the children remain with the parents as long as they respect conditions imposed by the Court and collaborate with the social worker. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parents are represented by Me Angèle Tommasel and Me Marianne Léonard, the children by Me Cassandra Neptune and Me Aubrée Coutanson assists the applicant. [ 4 ] The evidence of the new facts in support of the revision is constituted of the admissions of the parents and children, the revision report and the testimony of the applicant. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that the children were first entrusted in foster families in City A, but as they were constantly sleeping at their parents’ house, they were moved in new foster families in City B, and after in City C. [ 6 ] On November 2016, the mother was sent in detention.

She came back on December 29 and was submitted to house arrest. [ 7 ] On November 30, the father was released from detention and came back in City A. As the father was collaborating with the social worker, the children were entrusted in foster families in City A on December 17.

Then, they had regular contacts with the father and had regular sleepovers. [ 8 ] Unfortunately, at the beginning of January 2017, the father was sent back to detention for breaches of conditions. [ 9 ] At the time, X remained at the family household with the authorisation of the Director of Youth Protection with a weekly follow-up as she was rarely at her foster family, where she was placed until September 16, 2017. The social worker was unable to make her respect the Court order. [ 10 ] On February 4, 2017, the children went back by themselves in their foster families after having witnessed a fight between the

mother and their sibling C. At the time, the mother was intoxicated and aggressive. [ 11 ] Since the end of April, the mother is detained and she should be released on October 2017. [ 12 ] The father was released from detention on June 16, and offers since, a good collaboration. [ 13 ] Then, the progressive reintegration of Y and Z started and everything is fine. The children attend school regularly and the father is attentive to them. [ 14 ] The father has to develop more parental capacities. He needs to become able to protect the children from the mother when she is violent and intoxicated.

To achieve such skills, they accepts the services of an external educator. [ 15 ] The social worker testifies that despite of the services offered, they were not able to find a way for the children to remain in their respective foster family. The interventions conducted to respect the order occurred to be a traumatising experience for the children.

Consequently, they consider that the best option for the children is to be staying with their family. [ 16 ] As long as the father collaborates with the social worker and the mother does when she will be released, that they ensure that they always be sober and non-violent (physically and verbally) in front of the children, that they will ensure the children regular attendance at school and that they will end their in and out of detention, the children may stay with the parents. [ 17 ] If the parents do not respect those conditions, the Director of Youth Protection will have to ask for revision and to find foster families outside the community.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y and Z are still in danger; [ 20 ] REMAINS the children with the parents to the specific conditions : 20.1. That they always be sober in presence of the children; 20.2. That they remain without any violent behaviours in presence of the children; 20.3. That they ensure the regular attendance of the children at school; 20.4.

That they collaborate with the external educator and social worker; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the parents the services of an external educator until September 30, 2018; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents until August 8, 2018 for X and until September 30, 2018 for Z and Y; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the children specific health care and health services including a psychological assessment for Z and Y; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to seek help through social services for their alcohol, drugs and other personal issues; [ 25 ] ORDERS the children to attend school regularly; [ 26 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Me Marianne Léonard Attorney for the father Me Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the children Date of hearing: September 7, 2017