2012 QCCQ 17278, 2012 QCCQ 17278

Protection de la jeunesse — 126784 2012 QCCQ 17278 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N os : 640-41-001387-114 640-41-001388-112 DATE : May 22, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN: X Born on […], 2010 Y Born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in City A (Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in City A (Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B residing and domiciled in City A (Quebec), district A; Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) submits to the Court a motion for revision of a decision rendered on September 13, 2011 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais in which the Court entrusted the children to their parents with different measures to solve their problems. [ 2 ] At that time, the Director was recommending a placement in a foster home for the children because he feared that the parents would not collaborate to improve the situation and that the children were at risk. [ 3 ] That day, the parents stated without hesitation that they would collaborate with the social worker and accept the social services' help.

Accordingly, the Court entrusted the children to their parents. In its decision, Justice Gervais writes: « [ 18 ] The parents must keep in mind at all times that it is strictly on the basis of their commitment to offer continued collaboration that the Court considers appropriate to return both children to their natural environment. [ 19 ] There is no doubt that both father and mother have what it takes to raise healthy children, as long as they gain control over their life and accept to receive support that is available to them. » [ 4 ] A few months later, the parents had forgotten their promises to the Court.

[ 5 ] On April 2, 2012, Justice Denyse Leduc entrusts the children to a foster family until May 2, 2012. [ 6 ] On May 2, 2012, after hearing the parents promising to seriously commit themselves to the services, Justice Daniel Bédard agreed to entrust the children back to their parents until May 22, date of the present hearing. [ 7 ] Today, though the parents' commitment is very fragile, the social worker is ready to continue to apply the measures that were ordered by Justice Bédard for six (6) months. [ 8 ] The social worker hopes that this time the parents will be serious in solving their problems.

Update of the situation since September 13, 2011 [ 9 ] In the first months, the parents are collaborative. They are present at most of the meetings and open to discuss different issues. They are looking healthy. [ 10 ] In January 2012, the parents' attitude changes. They do not talk any more in the meetings. They do not want help anymore. [ 11 ] At the same period, the social worker gets information that the mother is drinking alcohol. [ 12 ] On January 12, the parents deny consuming any alcohol. [ 13 ] On January 13, 2012, the mother calls the police because the father has beaten her up.

When the police get to the parents' house, the mother is very intoxicated and totally disorganized. The father is also drunk but seems to be able to control the situation. The police leave the children with the parents without informing the Director. [ 14 ] On March 12, the Director receives a report stating that both children are alone at the grandmother's house. The children are found very dirty. The father is drunk and the grandmother is gone.

She was tired of taking care of the children, she explained later. [ 15 ] The children are entrusted to a foster family for the night. [ 16 ] The next day, the father is supposed to pick up the children but he never shows up. The social worker goes to his house to look for him. The house is found very dirty: garbage and diapers all over the floor. The father finally comes to the social worker's office after being told his children would be placed longer if he was not to collaborate. [ 17 ] On March 21, 2012, the father is met again at the social worker's office. He is desperate.

He says the mother left him in February and since then, he feels depressed. However, he assures the social worker he has not been drinking in the past month and says the grandmother is taking good care of the children when he is working. [ 18 ] On March 22, the Director receives another report stating that the children are alone at the grandmother's house.

They are found neglected, covered with scratches and unexplained bruises. [ 19 ] The grandmother and the aunt say that they are forced to take care of the children. [ 20 ] That day, both parents are nowhere to be found. [ 21 ] The children are entrusted to a foster family again. [ 22 ] A few days later, the father calls the social worker to know where his children are. He admits that he cannot take care of the children. The father is crying heavily on the phone. The mother states that she does not want to take care of her children and that these children are not hers anymore.

Indeed, the mother did not ask about her children or saw them since she left the father in February. [ 23 ] A few weeks later, both parents state that they are back together and that their problems are solved. They are expecting their children back. They do not recognize any problem and do not want any help. [ 24 ] On May 2, the parents convince the Court that they will seriously commit to the services in order to recover their children.

The Court agrees on giving them a second chance until May 22 where the revision petition will be heard. [ 25 ] What happened in the family situation since May 2 nd ? [ 26 ] The social worker made four (4) surprise visits: May 7, 10, 12 and 14. Each time, one of the parents was present and sober. [ 27 ] As for the meetings with the social services, the parents never called or met social services. The mother says that they would go to please the judge but does not understand why it is ordered. [ 28 ] On May 16, 2012, the parents finally contacted the social services to get their first appointment.

At that first meeting, the parents maintained that they can remain sober without any help. [ 29 ] At the hearing, both parents, well counselled by their attorney, said they were ready to follow strict rules including meetings at the social services in order to keep the responsibility of their children. Applicable measures [ 30 ] At first, the Court was not ready to grant the petition according to the conclusions because of the parent's recurrent resistance to accept the necessary help in order to keep them away from their well-documented problems.

[ 31 ] The parents seem to think that changes can be magical and that no effort nor help is required for their situation to improve in a permanent way. [ 32 ] The Court disagrees with them. Permanent improvement requires efforts and support.

The parents cannot alone get rid of their problems. [ 33 ] But, though the Court is not that enthusiastic at maintaining the children with the parents knowing there very little cooperation so far, all the parties believe, including the attorney for the children, that the Court can trust the parents for fulfilling their promises this time. [ 34 ] Consequently, the Court will follow their common recommendations but not without inviting with insistence the parents to be very serious this time in respecting their commitments. [ 35 ] If they do not comply with the order, the Court will apply the Law. [ 36 ] The Law does not say we have to give a chance to the parents.

The Law says we have to give a chance to the children. [ 37 ] If the parents can contribute to the children's well-being, the Court will be more than happy to maintain the children with their parents. Otherwise, the Court will find a home where the children will be free from alcohol, violence and neglect.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the present petition amended; REVISES the decision rendered on September 13, 2011 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais; DECLARES that the security and the development of X and Y are still in danger; MAINTAINS X and Y with their parents for a period of six (6) months; ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of their children; PROHIBITS any alcohol in the parents' house; AUTHORIZES the Director to make unannounced visits at the parents' house; RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help for their drinking problem and for their personal and couple issues; ORDERS that the parents present themselves at the social services as often as needed but at least once a week; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by Court; ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X, Y and their mother for a period of six (6) months ; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the D.Y.P. A., for the execution of this order; ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. M e Gabriel Gaudreault Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Jean-Francis Bonnette Attorney for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Attorney for the mother M e Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 22, 2012