2012 QCCQ 13960, 2012 QCCQ 13960

Protection de la jeunesse — 125679 2012 QCCQ 13960 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-022987-101 N°: 525-41-022986-103 DATE: October 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2001 - and - Y Born on […], 2007 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 5, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension of orders rendered December 7, 2011, entrusting the children to their mother’s care with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of four months. [ 3 ] On April 15 and June 5, 2012, postponements were granted and interim measures, entrusting the children to their mother’s care, were granted. [ 4 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: In the case of X: • The child remained under the care of her mother; • The child was withdrawn at school and her hygiene is of concern; • The child was reported to be often late and absent from school; • The child's hygiene has been an issue at school; • The child feels caught between both her parents; • The mother acknowledged that the child was often late to school as she struggles in the morning with her two youngest children.

In the case of Y: • The child remained under the care of her mother; • The child started attending the ACentre once per week; • The child’s communication has significantly improved; • The child is undergoing an assessment in order to determine if he will be able to attend a community school or the ACentre; • The child regularly visited the father.

For both children: • The mother has not maintained the gains with regards to her parenting; • Since January 2012, the mother has a new partner in her life; • The children reported that the mother’s former partner, C, tried to break into the mother’s window on one occasion; • The father reported that the mother continues to make negative comments about him and his partner; • The father completed a parenting program called A and also the B program; • The father completed a drug program at center B; • The father did not attend any random drug testing, in spite of having been asked to do so on at least seven different occasions. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and consent to the measures recommended by DYP. [ 7 ] The father wishes to have extended contacts with his children and for the Court to allow his spouse, D, to be present during these contacts.

Currently, the father receives his children every Sunday. [ 8 ] The Court is informed that the father has another child with D, that this child is placed in center B care and that the contacts between Ms. D and her child are supervised by DYP. [ 9 ] The mother does not wish for D to be present when her children visit their father. [ 10 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in the children’s best interest. [ 11 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [social worker 1], human relations’ agent, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation.

The evidence reveals that Y’s file at the A Centre was closed, as the centre could not reach the mother. With the help of DYP, Y is now on the waiting list for the A Centre and is expected to be enrolled in summer 2013. Furthermore, the child's surgery was postponed due to his medicare card being expired. He has not started kindergarten, as the mother did not take the necessary steps to obtain his Certificate of Eligibility to attend English School in time for the beginning of the school year.

He also needs an inter school board agreement to attend A Elementary School. [ 12 ] As for X, she is attending Elementary School A. A letter, dated May 30, 2012, was filed as exhibit D-3 from the A Elementary Resource Department. This letter outlines a number of concerns, ranging from the child’s lunches being poor, to her hygiene being a constant concern. Furthermore, that the child was often late or absent from school.

However, the youth worker spoke with the school authorities in September 2012 and they reported that X is well dressed, her lunches are sufficient and she arrives to school on time. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that there remain many concerns around the parents' abilities to answer to all of their children’s needs. The father’s drug use remains of concern since he has not presented himself to many of the drug tests that were requested by DYP.

However, he receives his children every Sunday and collaborates with the youth workers. [ 14 ] As for the mother, in January 2012, the educator, Ms. [social worker 2], reported that the home was messy, including the children’s bedrooms and that the mother was short tempered in her tone with both herself and the children. The mother explained to the delegate that she was pregnant from her former partner and that she lost the baby in December 2011.

The mother is now receiving the services of an educator every Thursday evening and it is reported that the mother has made some gains and that the apartment is clean. [ 15 ] There are also concerns around the mother's choice of partners. The children reported that C, the mother's former partner had exhibited violent behaviour in their presence. In September 2012, the mother asked her live-in spouse, Mr. C, to leave due to his intravenous drug use.

Therefore, it will be essential for DYP to meet with any adult living in the mother's home or who are in contact with the children on a regular basis. [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their mother’s care and that a social follow-up be maintained for a period of one year. The parents will need to collaborate with DYP in their children’s best interest. The father must

present himself to all his drug tests and the mother must see to the children’s social and medical needs. [ 17 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 18 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 20 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the children, X and Y, be entrusted to the care of their mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to any verbal or physical violence; [ 23 ] ORDERS the father to submit to random drug testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of his consent to do so; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary by DYP; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and Ms.

D be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by their situation and more particularly, in the case of Y, that he participate in the program at the A Center and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Y must also undergo surgery; [ 28 ] ORDERS the mother to take the necessary steps for Y's medicare card to be renewed; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that X receive academic support; [ 30 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to have access to all pertinent information from treating professionals; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS strongly that the mother participate in individual counselling; [ 32 ] ORDERS the mother to inform DYP without delay of any person living in the home and RECOMMENDS DYP to meet with this person and RECOMMENDS that the mother encourage this person to meet with the youth worker; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of one year; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 22, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Daniel Bouchard Counsel for the children Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Alexandre Lenis Counsel for the father

Dates of hearing: June 5 and October 5, 2012