r v. C, 2010 QCCQ 17792

Protection de la jeunesse — 106799 2010 QCCQ 17792 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division Nos: 640-41-001306-106 / 640-41-001304-101 640-41-001308-102 / 640-41-001307-104 / 640-41-001305-108 DATE: December 13, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […] 2002 Y , born on […], 2003 Z , born on […], 2004 A , born on […], 2007 B , born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection for the A of Health and Social Services A, working in city B, district B, province of Quebec Petitioner v.

C , residing and domiciled in city B, district A, province of Quebec Mother and D , residing and domiciled in city C, district B, province of Quebec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 an 75, Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a petition from the Director of Youth Protection asking to declare the security and development of the five children in danger because their parents' way of life creates a risk of neglect. [ 2 ] The parents have gone through years of turmoil and of alcohol and drug dependency. As a result, the children, respectively 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 years old, have experienced instability and negligence. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved with this family for over 8 years now.

Many voluntary measures were signed over the years. [ 4 ] The Court has no hesitations to declare the security and development of the children in danger, under

section 38(b)2) of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 5 ] The Social Report reveals some improvement since the children were placed in foster care on August 30, 2010. Both parents have stopped drinking and using drugs. The collaboration with the Youth Protection Worker, [social worker 2], is positive, particularly the father’s. The parents acknowledge their problems and the fact that they need to attend treatment. Both parents met regularly with [social worker 2] the last months. [ 6 ] The mother plans to attend a six-week treatment session in city C. She is supposed to leave on November 7, 2010.

She is also willing to meet with a psychologist on a regular basis. [ 7 ] During the absence of the mother, the father will take care of the children with the help of the extended family. He is supposed to go to treatment once the mother returns to the community. [ 8 ] The recommendation of the applicant is to keep the children under their parents’ care, with strict conditions and close monitoring. [ 9 ] The Court, after some hesitation, accepts the recommendation despite the numerous voluntary measures taken in the past.

The objectives of the law is to provide services and help to the parents in order for them to fully exercise their parental responsibilities.

[ 10 ] The conditions must be strictly respected by both parents. If they are not capable of respecting the Court order, then the decision will have to be reviewed and measures taken to ensure the security and stability of the children. The parents must understand how important it is for them to get involved and change their way of life. If they do not succeed, it will clearly point to the necessity to find a measure that will ensure a stable and caring home for the children where their needs can be met. [ 11 ] FOR ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT : [ 12 ] DECLARES the security and development of the five children in danger, in regards to section 38(2)

b) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 13 ] MAINTAINS the children Z, B, A Y and X with their parents under the conditions that: - the parents be prohibited from drinking alcohol or using drugs; - the parents and all other people in the house be prohibited from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the children are present; - the mother have the obligation to meet with the NADAAP worker until she leaves for the treatment centre; - the mother have the obligation to attend treatment; - the father have the obligation to take the necessary steps to attend alcohol and drug abuse treatment once the mother comes back to the community. [ 14 ] ORDERS that the mother receive a regular follow-up from a psychologist as long as it is recommended by the professional; [ 15 ] ORDERS that both parents meet regularly with a social worker and collaborate actively with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 16 ] ORDERS that both parents authorize unannounced visits to be made by the Director of Youth Protection to verify their sobriety and the children’s situation; [ 17 ] ORDERS that both parents attend counselling for anger management, parenting skills, relationship building and alcohol and drug abuse; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child X be followed-up by a child psychologist; [ 19 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the parents for a period of two (2) years; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present enactment. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C.

Me Yan Massé For the children Me Marie-Claude De Gagné For the mother

Me Clara Lafrance-Egervari For the father Me Robert-André Adam For the petitioner Date of hearing : October 14, 2010