2013 QCCQ 8508, 2013 QCCQ 8508

Protection de la jeunesse — 131779 2013 QCCQ 8508 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division NO: 640-41-001517-124 DATE: February 4, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Board of Health and Social Services A PETITIONER AND X Born […] 2006 CHILD AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38, 91, 76.3 and 76.4 of the Youth Protection Act , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking that the security and the development of X be declared endangered pursuant to

section 38 paragraphs

b) c) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is represented by M e Claude Beaudet and M e Daniel Ouellette acts on behalf of the child. M e Marianne Gagnon-Bourget represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] For the present hearing the father, duly served, is not present. He is currently serving a jail term in City A. He is not really involved in X's life on a regular basis, but he was informed of X's situation by the Social Worker.

All of the parties ask to proceed in the absence of the father because he has made no steps to be represented by a lawyer or to be present in court today. [ 4 ] The parties also ask that Mr. C, the mother's spouse, be present in the courtroom, not as a party, but as an interested person. Since Mr. C is involved in X's life on a daily basis and as he is, like the mother, part of the problem but also part of the solution, the Court allows him to be present during the hearing. [ 5 ] On October 16, 2012, judge Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q. ordered provisional measures during the proceedings.

The child was maintained with his mother. One of the Court orders was that the mother and her spouse, Mr. C, attend a family treatment program at [A Center] from October 29 to December 7, 2012. She also allowed the Director of Youth Protection to come back to court on a 24-hour verbal notice to the parties if the mother was not following the conditions given by the Court. The evidence reveals that the mother did not attend the therapy as ordered by the Court. She went on a three-day conference in City B at the end of November. No one can explain why the Court was not seized with this situation.

In the Court's view, a three-day conference cannot amount to a six-week therapy to address alcohol consumption and domestic violence issues. [ 6 ] The parties submit to the Court a draft agreement. The mother, duly represented, admits the following facts: 2.1 The parents are separated and the mother is the main caregiver of the child; 2.2 The father is presently detained; 2.3 The mother displays alcohol and anger management related problems; 2.4 The mother and her boyfriend display conjugal violence related problems; 2.5 The child displays behavioral problems, notably:

a) Displaying aggressive behavior at school;

b) Not respecting the rules;

c) Not attending school on a regular basis; 2.6 The mother does not collaborate with the staff of the school regarding the behavioral problems of the child; 2.7 On September 11, 2012, the child was suspended from school; 2.8 On October 6, 2012, the Youth Protection had to intervene with the mother and the child following an event of violence because the mother was intoxicated; 2.9 On October 10, 2012, the mother signed a provisional agreement regarding the placement of the child in foster care as it appears from a copy of the Measures, filed as Exhibit D-2 ; 2.10 However, later that day, the mother changed her mind about the provisional agreement; 2.11 The collaboration of the mother with the Youth Protection is irregular; [ 7 ] In order to put an end to the situation that endangered the child's security and development, the parties agree on the following measures: 3.1 That the child remains with the mother; 3.2 The Court measures extend to 12 months with Youth Protection to ensure the security and development of the child is (sic) not jeopardized; (sic) 3.3 That (sic) parent A collaborate with the A Team, school team and [centre B] to deliver a (sic) intervention plan for X; 3.4 That a person working for a body or an institution provides (sic) aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the child's family for a period of 12 months; 3.5 That the mother report periodically to the Director on the measures she applies to (sic) her own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is (sic) in danger; 3.6 That the mother meet with the principal during the first week of school after the holidays having for goal the return of the child at school as soon as possible 3.7 That the mother meet with (sic) [C Center] (sic) worker before december (sic) 21 st 2012, in order to set a date to go to [A Center]; 3.8 That the mother and the (sic) spouse C remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 8 ] The mother declares that she gave a free and enlightened consent to these measures and that she will collaborate to their execution.

M e Daniel Ouellette who acts on behalf of the child, is of the opinion that these measures respect the best interest of his young client and his rights. Since one of those measures also involves the mother's spouse, the Court asked Mr.

C to sign this draft agreement, which he did. [ 9 ] With the measures added to address specific issues, the Court is of the opinion that these measures are likely to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of X. [ 10 ] The Court: [ 11 ] ORDERS the implementation of the draft agreement; [ 12 ] ORDERS that all parties collaborate with the execution of these measures and, consequently: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are endangered pursuant to

section 38 paragraphs b), c), and,

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother; [ 16 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel, and assistance to the child and his family and to Mr.

C, for a period of 12 months; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the mother collaborate with the A Team, the school team, and the [center B] to deliver an intervention plan for X; [ 18 ] ORDERS the mother to report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies to put an end to the situation in which the security or the development of X are endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother meet with the principal of the school during the first week of school after the Holidays with the

objective of reintegrating X in school as soon as possible; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother meet with the [C Center ] worker before December 21, 2012, in order to set a date to go to [A Center]; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother and her spouse, Mr. C, remain sober in presence of the child; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.Q.C. M e Marianne Gagnon-Bourget Lawyer for the petitioner M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child M e Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: December 17, 2012