2017 QCCQ 8505, 2017 QCCQ 8505

Protection de la jeunesse — 173401 2017 QCCQ 8505 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001933-156 640-41-001934-154 DATE: February 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2012 Y, born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 95(1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act, CQLR c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (D.Y.P.) submitted to the Court motions for revision of the judgment rendered on December 7, 2015 concerning the situation of the children X, born on [...], 2012, and Y, born on [...], 2013. [ 2 ] The D.Y.P. recommended that the children be entrusted to a foster home until August 31, 2017, with possible reintegration with the parents as soon as possible if the situation allowed it. [ 3 ] The mother agreed with the recommendations.

The father asked to have the children back with him before Christmas. [ 4 ] On December 7, 2015, the honourable Lise Gagnon declared the security and development of the children in danger and ordered the following measures: FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS the motion; DECLARES that the children X and Y be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a possible reintegration with the parents if the situation allows it; ORDERS that the parents of the children X and Y take an active

part in the application of any of the measures; ORDERS that the children’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the DYP to inform him of the current situation; ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children X and Y receive health services required by their situation; ORDERS that the parents of the children the X and Y remain sober in the presence of the children; ORDERS that the parents of the children X and Y remain without any violent behaviour in the presence of the children;

RECOMMENDS that the parents of the children X and Y seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; ORDERS that the contacts between the children X and Y and their parents be determined by the DYP as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; ORDERS that a person working for the DYP provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children X and Y and their family; ORDERS that the police collaborate with the execution of the enactment; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y, to the DYP A for the purpose of executing the order; THE WHOLE until December 23 rd , 2016. [ 5 ] The Court believes it is important to recall some of the reasons given by Gagnon J. for ordering the placement of the children.

She mentioned the following facts in her decision: [24] The parents have a long history of alcohol and conjugal violence issues. They have a very important criminal record. These problems cannot be solved overnight. The parents will have to put words into actions if they want to recover their children’s responsibility. [25] At the hearing, the social worker testifies over her expectations in the next months. [26] First, she expects the parents to report to the DYP every week.

At the moment they always say they forget. [27] Second, the parents shall seek help at social services concerning their drinking and conjugal violence issues. [28] Third, the parents shall inform the social worker when they visit their children and must remain sober and without violent behaviour while visiting them. [29] The Court is not ready to initiate a reintegration early process. The parents will have to show seriousness in their follow-ups before anything.

However, if they do so, visits can be increased. [30] The Court asks the social worker not to reintegrate the children too quickly . [Our emphasis.] [ 6 ] Despite the specific mention by the Court, in fact, the children were returned home with the parents on December 15, 2015. The lack of foster home resources involved in the northern context brought the D.Y.P. to maintain the children at home. [ 7 ] The children were only three years old and one year old at that time.

They were very dependant and vulnerable. [ 8 ] The applicant did not submit to the Court the situation of the children and failed to comply with the Court order.

The Court must underline the responsibility of the D.Y.P. to enforce the measures that are specifically ordered to protect the children and put an end to the situation that endangered their security and development. [ 9 ] The situation was totally unacceptable and had to be reported. [ 10 ] The Court should have been seized of the review of the situation before the children were entrusted to the parents against the Court order. [ 11 ] The Court is of the opinion that the rights of the children were violated during the period covered by the last Court order. [ 12 ] The evidence showed that the security and development of the children were still in danger because of the high risk of neglect related to the parents’ alcohol consumption and the lack of supervision of these very young children. [ 13 ] During the summer, a few events occurred that were reported on the emergency line or by the [Police force A].

Mainly, the parents were intoxicated and the children were left alone or the parents were drinking in the presence of the children without the presence of a babysitter. [ 14 ] Another series of events was reported at the end of September, 2016. [ 15 ] On September 24, 2016, the father called the D.Y.P. to say they were both intoxicated and the children were alone at home. In fact, the mother had found a babysitter and the children was under her care. [ 16 ] On September 27, 2016, the children were removed from the parents’ house.

The parents were highly intoxicated and had left the children alone at home. [ 17 ] The parents came to meet the D.Y.P. nine days later. They agreed to a temporary placement. [ 18 ] The children are attached to the parents. They were very sad when contact with their parents was scheduled and it had to be cancelled because the parents did not show up. [ 19 ] According to the Revision Report, the father and the mother are loving parents. They shows adequate parenting skills when they are sober. They give affection, stimulation and demonstrate clear complicity with the children.

[ 20 ] The parents acknowledged their issues. They seemed to be willing to work on them. The parents’ main challenge will be to show that they are capable of maintaining a stable environment free from violence and alcohol abuse. [ 21 ] The children are vulnerable and their reintegration will not be possible if the parents do not take all the necessary steps to resolve their issues and provide a safe environment for the children.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 23 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on December 7, 2015; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2012, and Y, born on [...], 2013, is still in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family, with possible reintegration with the parents as soon as the situation allows it; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the children’s parents take an active

part in the application of all of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the children’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any violent behaviour in the presence of the children; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents receive follow-up with social services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 31 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and the parents be determined by the D.Y.P. with respect to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that contact between the children and the parents during the holiday period be encouraged; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the children’s family; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse be notified of this judgment; [ 35 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the judgment; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE , until August 31, 2017. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Kimon Kling Attorney for the child Mtre. Aubree Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Mtre. Marianne Léonard Attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 29, 2016