2012 QCCQ 17740, 2012 QCCQ 17740

Protection de la jeunesse — 126916 2012 QCCQ 17740 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division N os : 640-41-001351-110 and 640-41-001352-118 DATE: November 26, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on […], 2007 Y, born on […], 2006 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, district A Petitioner and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection A, seizes the Court with two petitions in revision of the last judgment rendered on April 19, 2012 concerning the situation of Y and X, 6 and 5 years old. She asks for the children's placement until their majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the children are represented by Me Ratha Heang and Me Gabriel Gaudreault represents the petitioner.

The parents are absent. [ 3 ] Evidence is made that the parents are aware of the hearing and the objectives of the revision. The father was met by the social worker and transportation was offered to him. He is not interested to attend the Court. [ 4 ] For the mother, the social worker spoke to her and offered her transportation.

The mother did not accept the modalities of such transportation. [ 5 ] Considering the parents' position and the fact that they are not involved in the children's life, considering the time elapsed since their first placement, and considering the children's interest, the Court accepts to proceed without them. [ 6 ] A revision report, an occurrence report and discussion from Facebook are filed. The Court heard the testimonies of the social worker, and Mrs C and Mrs D, foster parents. [ 7 ] The analysis of the evidence shows that the situation of Y and X remain similar since the last judgment.

The mother still displays alcohol related problems and she moved in Town C on July 20, 2012. The father was charged last July 4, 2012 for drug trafficking. He was arrested and detained for a while. He did not collaborate with the social worker since the last judgment and did not visit his children. He saw his son twice because of Mrs C's collaboration. [ 8 ] The mother had few visits with the children, but did not respect the agreement. She had the children for the weekend on May 31, but did not return her son. She left for Town C with him without authorization.

He was found by the Youth Protection of Town C, was placed in a foster family, and two days later, was transferred to Town B. [ 9 ] The mother visited them once a month, but did not show any respect for the conditions. [ 10 ] The children are placed for more than three years because of their parents' negligence. They used to consume alcohol on regular basis and to have a violent relationship. The father stopped drinking, but not the mother. Both have criminal files.

[ 11 ] Y lives with Mrs D since three years and she is attached to her foster mother. She attends school and is doing fine. She met her mother few times since April, but each time came back reacting badly. It always takes her few days to adjust herself back to her routine. Mrs D is willing to take the responsibility of Y until her majority. [ 12 ] X is living with Mrs C and is attached to her and her husband. He is considered as a member of the foster family. He has a strong connection with his foster parents calling them Mom and Dad. Mrs C is afraid of the mother's harassment.

She would appreciate supervised visits and contacts by the Director of Youth Protection.

She accepts to assume the responsibility of X until his majority. [ 13 ] In the last judgment, the undersigned refused to reintegrate the children with the father for the motives that no evidence was provided that the father was involved in the life of the children, that he introduced them to his girlfriend and that bounds were developed between them. [ 14 ] The Court provides the father on the delay of six months to get involved with his children and the social worker, but unfortunately, he did not collaborate nor develop any strong bounds with them. [ 15 ] Considering the evidence and

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court must provide the children a stable and secure family ensuring continuity of care. [ 16 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 17 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS the placement of Y and X in foster families until their majority; [ 20 ] ORDERS that Y be placed in the foster family of Mrs D and X in the foster family of Mrs C; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise all the visit rights and contacts between the children and the parents (frequency, duration and third person if needed) and ORDERS the parents to be sober in the presence of the children; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents until the children reach the age of majority; [ 23 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudrault, attorney for the petitioner Me Ratha Heang, attorney for the child Date of hearing: October 18, 2012