2020 QCCQ 12762, 2020 QCCQ 12762

Protection de la jeunesse — 209331 2020 QCCQ 12762 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-001053-203 DATE: August 3, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on September 10, 2013, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) i, (b) (1) iii and (b) (2) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child remain with the parents with services until August 31, 2021. [ 3 ] X has two siblings, Y (17 months old) and Z (8 years old). The Court proceeds on a common hearing. Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Villemur.

He recognizes that the se-curity and development of his child are endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] X is absent, but represented by Me Sinnett. The child recognized most of the alleged facts and agrees with the measures. Facts [ 7 ] The family is known from the DYP as the child was followed regarding a situation of psychological ill-treatment and serious risk of neglect from 2016 to October 2019. [ 8 ] The situation of the youngest child was reported to the DYP on May 19, 2020.

That day, the mother brought him to the nursing as he had difficulty to breathe, he was lethargic, unable to wake up and to hold his head. His skin was grey and his lips were blue. The nurse firstly thought about a head injury, but after no improvement from 3 pm to 1 am, it was decided to medevac the child to the Town B Children’s Hospital. [ 9 ] Once there, the same symptoms were noted and a urine test was done. This test came back positive to cannabis. The child got better and was discharged from the hospital.

[ 10 ] The parents were in relationship for 16 years and had five children. Two were given for traditional adoption. The parents are on and off in relation. The three others children mostly sometimes live with the mother at the mother’s sister’s place, but they visit the father and sometimes the maternal grandmother. The two girls are going to school, and Y is not going to daycare.

The father has a full- time job, but the mother does not work. [ 11 ] According to the information provided by the medical staff in Town A and in Town B, the mother smelt marijuana when she arrived at the nursing and she had a flat affect throughout the medical interventions even if when she was made aware of the result. It is also known that the mother consumed alcohol and cannabis during Y’s pregnancy. [ 12 ] The mother was met by the police who investigated about Y’s intoxication. The mother denied having cannabis at her place saying that she did not consume since the end of March 2020.

The mother told the police officer that it could have happened at the father’s place where the child was the day before the symptoms, or at her sister’s place. She supposed that the child took some cannabis there and put it in his mouth. [ 13 ] The mother told the DYP worker that she consumes alcohol once every two week or once every month. She consumes one gram of cannabis every day. [ 14 ] The father was also met. He was collaborative, but because he was consuming at that time, he refused to meet the DYP worker.

An appointment was planned for the next day. [ 15 ] According to the mother, the father is not very involved nor helpful with the children, but she has no concerns regarding his parental capacities when the children visit him. [ 16 ] Ms. C, the mother’s sister, where the accident could have happened, was also met. She admitted that it is possible that Y ate cannabis at her place, but said that it was an accident, that it will not happen again and she refused to give more details about the circumstances and her consumption habits. [ 17 ] The father did not come at his meeting, so the DYP worker went to his place.

The father was there with the mother, both were intoxicated by alcohol and cannabis. After insulting the DYP worker, the mother apologized. The father asserted that the accident did not happen at his place because he always takes precautions for the children not to be in contact with any substances. He said not being in a state to discuss, so the meeting was rescheduled. [ 18 ] The aunt, with whom the mother lives, was also met and she confirms that the children are never with the parents when they consume because the mother asks the grandmother to babysit them before.

And she never consume at the aunt’s place because she is not authorized to do so. [ 19 ] The DYP worker also tried to communicate with the two grandmothers, but both refused to give any information and were aggressive. [ 20 ] Because of this lack of collaboration, the DYP worker took an immediate protect-tive measure and entrusted Y to a foster family on June 2, 2020. The Court rendered a provisional measure on June 5, 2020, and maintained the child in a foster family. [ 21 ] After this measure was taken, the parents and the extended family members changed their mind and started to collaborate.

The mother started to give more details about her consumption and the accident. She admitted consuming cannabis every day with the father, but the children are never there when they do, and she totally stopped drinking since Y was placed. She also said being sure that Y ate marijuana at her sister’s place. During her presence at her sister’s place that day she remained sober all the time and saw a change in Y’s attitude the same evening. She supervised him and the day after he had fever and she brought him to the nursing immediately.

The antibiotic did not change anything, so Y was medevaced to Town C the same day and after that to Town B. [ 22 ] The father also opened himself about the situation. He informed the DYP worker that the parents resumed their relationship and diminished their drug consumption. He is ready to collaborate and wants to receive help from Social Services to improve the situation. [ 23 ] Both parents understand the seriousness of the accident and also understand that when they are intoxicated they are not available for their children and it is not a good model for them.

They are ready to collaborate to improve their family situation. [ 24 ] X is developing very well and has very strong bonds with her parents and siblings. [ 25 ] The parents maintained a very good collaboration since the placement of their son and were very adequate to each visit. The extended family members are very helpful. Analysis [ 26 ] The reason of the DYP involvement in the family is very serious. The conse-quences for Y could have been very important. Fortunately, he does not have sequels. [ 27 ] This accident shed light on the parents’ issues.

They are struggling with an important drug addiction and that prevents them from being fully available for their children. [ 28 ] The children are very young, particularly Y, and as the parents realized, a few seconds of inattention are sufficient for a serious accident. [ 29 ] The placement of their son had been necessary for them to realize the importance of their addiction and the possible consequences on their children. [ 30 ] The parents collaborated well since the placement and the Court insisted on the importance to maintain such collaboration. The

children deserve to be raised by the parents and to be surrounded by their extended family members. It would be very sad that the children be removed from their parents’ care, so the parents have to maintain their level of involvement. [ 31 ] The parents also mentioned that they would like to have regular contacts in person with the DYP worker. As they are willing to collaborate, it is important to offer them a very close follow-up as they wish by the regular DYP worker working in Town A.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2013, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) i, (b) (1) iii and (b) (2) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child remain with the parents; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the parents' place; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services for their personal issues; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE until August 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 3, 2020