2017 QCCQ 12247, 2017 QCCQ 12247

Protection de la jeunesse — 175031 2017 QCCQ 12247 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 614-41-000035-156 DATE: July 25, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2015 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in City B, Quebec, District A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 seizes the Court with a motion in revision of the decision rendered on October 5, 2016 by Honourable Jacques Ladouceur concerning the situation of X, 2 years old. [ 2 ] The applicant, Mrs [Social Worker], asks that the child remain placed in foster family for another period of six months even if the child cumulates more than a year of placement in foster home. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parent are present, assisted by Me Yan Massé (mother) and Me Marie-Josée Ayoub (father).

The child is represented by Me Michel Grenier and Me Camille Champeval assists the applicant. [ 4 ] The parents admit many allegations. The mother disagrees with the recommendations. She wants to have her daughter back with her. The father agrees with the measures, but wants to have regular access to his daughter. [ 5 ] The evidence is completed with the testimonies of the social worker and the mother and the revision report. [ 6 ] It reveals that following facts: The father attended treatment for substance abuse for six weeks last November. On December 21, he relapsed.

He drank on that day and failed to pick up his child for a scheduled visit for Christmas Holiday. The visit started on December 22. On December 31, he went out to drink during the night without notifying his grandmother, while the child was visiting. [ 7 ] He also drank on January 9, 2017, the father finally admitted his drinking problem, but stated he does not drink during the visits of his daughter. [ 8 ] Because of his drinking problem, he was expelled from his home, too much noise and parties. He went to live at his parents’ place, but they asked him to leave because he created too much chaos in their home.

Now, he lives with his grandmother. [ 9 ] The father did not yet attend any anger management therapy nor have a regular psychological follow-up as ordered previously. [ 10 ] He is authorised to have regular contacts with his daughter, but he has to meet and collaborate with the social worker and respect the conditions imposed such as : be sober and spend all the time with her. [ 11 ] For the mother, the evidence reveals that her situation is still chaotic. She was unable to have regular contacts with her daughter. She saw her approximatively five times over the months.

She moved in City B with her new boyfriend and is pregnant. They lived at his parents’ home. She did not receive any form of treatment. She consumed alcohol and drugs until she learned her pregnancy.

[ 12 ] Her boyfriend consumes. He also has criminal record for violent behaviour. She did not collaborate with the social worker and was unavailable to her daughter.

One visit only was organised by the social worker. [ 13 ] Last March 2017, she was arrested and kept detained for two weeks in City C. [ 14 ] The mother has conflict with her parents. [ 15 ] Even though, since her daughter was removed from the foster family where she was since the age of four months, and kept by her grand-parents, the mother met them few times. [ 16 ] The mother still has an unstable way of life and her relationship with Mr C has not been evaluated.

Considering the mother’s problems with alcohol and drugs before her pregnancy, her criminal charges, the ones of her boyfriend, his regular consumption, the fact that they do not work, have to live at the boyfriend parents’ place, that six adults share the three bedrooms house and that the mother did not collaborate with the social worker, the Court believes that she cannot assume the child now. [ 17 ] If she really cares for X, she will collaborate with the social worker and attend the therapies she needs.

After the delivery of her baby, she has to stay sober and show that she has all the parental capacities and the maturity to assume the baby and to be present in the life of X. [ 18 ] Meanwhile, considering that the Director of Youth Protection had to remove the child from his foster family last May 2017 and now will integrate the child in a new foster family, ready to invest for a long-term placement, the next months will be very important to see if the child develop significant bond with the foster parents. [ 19 ] It gives also new delay to the mother to prove her motivation and interest to her daughter.

FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family for six months; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to favour and to supervise the visits of the child with her parents (frequency, duration, location and to remain sober during the visits); [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents for six months; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend a substance abuse program; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the father receive a regular psychological follow-up; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to report every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection and inform him of any change in their situation; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Me Yan Massé Attorney for the mother Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the father Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 5, 2017