2019 QCCQ 14842, 2019 QCCQ 14842

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911151 2019 QCCQ 14842 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002193-180 DATE: November 22, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 17, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2017 [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 House […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at House […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Interest party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 extend a decision rendered on September 6, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2017.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family with reintegration under the mother’s care, until September 30, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submitted that the situation does not allow for an immediate return of the child with his mother and that the placement has to be extended, but that a reintegration should nonetheless be started shortly. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The hearing was fixed for Monday, November 18, 2019. The mother and the undeclared father were present.

As the plane from Town B did not arrive and the undeclared father wished to be represented, the hearing was postponed to Tuesday. [ 4 ] The Court had to postpone the file from one day to another because of the lack of time to proceed. Every day, the mother came to the courthouse hoping to proceed. [ 5 ] The undeclared father asked to be declared an interested party. Considering the consent of the parties and the best interest of the child, Mr. B was declared an interested party under

section 81 of the YPA. [ 6 ] The mother, represented by Me Tommasel, recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but asks that her son be returned to her care immediately. [ 7 ] Mr. B, represented by Me Desmarais, also recognizes that the security and development of the child are still endangered, but as does the mother, asks that X be entrusted to them. [ 8 ] The child, who is 2 years old, is absent, but represented by Me Migué. As the Court proceeded by way of mediation, she participated in the best interest of her client.

History of the situation [ 9 ] On February 22, 2018 , a voluntary measure was signed by the mother for a period of one year. The mother recognized her alcohol consumption issues and her violent conjugal relationship. She had started addressing her drinking issues. The child was entrusted to a foster family with a reintegration with the mother if possible. [ 10 ] On July 20, 2018 , a provisional order was rendered and the Court entrusted the child to a foster family.

[ 11 ] On September 6, 2018 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. When the child was born, a baby alert was made because the mother drank during the pregnancy. At the hospital, she left the baby alone twice and was found intoxicated by the medical team. The child had to be entrusted in an emergency foster family a few times during events of consumption from the part of the mother and her boyfriend. After signing the voluntary measures, the mother missed numerous visits with her son and was seen intoxicated on the street many times.

At the end of May 2018, the mother and her boyfriend started to realize the seriousness of their situation and took steps towards addressing their issues. As a result of them doing so, the DYP started a progressive reintegration with them. A few weeks later, a violent event occurred between the mother and the grandmother in the presence of the child. The mother was highly intoxicated. Again, the child was entrusted to a foster family. After that event, the mother was not reachable. As for the baby, he had difficulty sleeping and was hypervigilant.

The child was developing a bond with the foster family and because of it, the Court invited the DYP worker to speak with the mother of the Center A mother and child program. The Court declared that the security and development were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family, recommending Ms. C. The Court authorized a reintegration and contacts under strict conditions, the whole until September 30, 2019. [ 12 ] On September 23, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and the Court maintained the status quo. Facts [ 13 ] Since the last order, the child has remained under Ms.

C’s care, in a specialized foster family. [ 14 ] From September to November 2018, the mother and her spouse attended Social Services regularly. During that time, they exercised supervised visits at the office. Considering that they were consistent with Social Services, the DYP worker authorized that the visits take place at home. [ 15 ] Mr. B was motivated to enter Center A and said that his son was his priority. Unfortunately, a few days later, as the mother did not want to attend treatment, he was disappointed and decided not to go. [ 16 ] In November, Mr.

B was arrested and detained for conjugal violence. [ 17 ] In order to increase the accesses between the child and his parents, at the end of November, weekend accesses were authorized. The first one went well, but the parents missed a lot of visits after that. [ 18 ] The parents gave many reasons for missing the visits, but according to them, it was mainly due to the fact that the foster family lives too far away and, as they have no ride, they had to walk to pick up their son.

The DYP worker disagrees with this explanation, as the mother works close to the foster family and walks there every day. [ 19 ] Considering this information, the DYP asked the parents to find solutions in order to be able to exercise their access rights and to increase them. The parents did not find any solutions. [ 20 ] On July 15, 2019, the parents started to receive the services of an external educator. [ 21 ] By mid-July, the father was released from detention following the conjugal violence event. The parents indicated that since his release, they have not consumed alcohol.

At that time, the DYP worker explained to them that they needed to maintain regular contacts with their son if they wanted to consider a reintegration. The following month, they missed only one day of visits and the child reacted well to the contacts. [ 22 ] In August, they also respected the calendar of visits. [ 23 ] Regarding their alcohol consumption, they said that they have stopped two months ago. They attend Social Services, but they consider that they are able to stop drinking by themselves. [ 24 ] In September, the parents were told that if they respect the calendar properly, sleepovers could be added.

The mother was very happy. During that month, they also mostly respected the calendar. [ 25 ] Both parents work full time, the father for the municipality, and the mother, as a receptionist at school. The mother is now pregnant, and she left on September 25 for Town B. Her return was planned for the end of October 2019. Before leaving, she requested a sleepover with her son. Spot checks were done and everything went well. [ 26 ] X is described as a joyful boy, with a lot of energy. He is an easy child who loves playing with other children.

He easily goes with unknown people, which raises concerns regarding attachment issues. [ 27 ] At the hearing, the DYP worker explained that she is planning a reintegration shortly, but she still has concerns because of the past. [ 28 ] The mother testified that there had not been alcohol at home for five months now, and that both parents were doing very well. They came back from Town B with their newborn who is not followed by the DYP. [ 29 ] The mother cannot wait to have her son back at home. [ 30 ] The Court explained to her the concerns raised by the DYP and an agreement was reached.

The parties agreed to start the reintegration at the parents’ place immediately, with respites allowed in a foster family if they need them. Analysis [ 31 ] The objective of the Youth Protection Act is to help the parents be able to assume their parental responsibilities and to resume the care of their children after a placement is needed.

[ 32 ] In X’s situation, he has been in a foster family for a few months now, so him and his parents will all have to adapt to a new situation, for sure. That being said, an adaptation period is not an obstacle to the reintegration with his parents, who have been making great efforts to address and resolve their issues. [ 33 ] With a newborn, they have the right to be tired, and the baby could be sick as well.

If so, the parents should feel free to request respite without being afraid that this demand will prevent them from maintaining custody of their son. [ 34 ] The parents should receive all the support that they need, and the DYP will be authorized to make spot checks to make sure that the situation is safe and that everyone is doing well. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2017, are still endangered; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child under the care of the mother and Mr.

B, with a possibility of respite in a foster family if they need; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits at the mother’s place; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B collaborate closely with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and Mr.

B seek help through Social Services concerning their personal issues; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 44 ] 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; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE until August 22, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Ulisce Desmarais Grégoire, attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: November 22, 2019