2022 QCCQ 14536, 2022 QCCQ 14536

Protection de la jeunesse — 229017 2022 QCCQ 14536 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002253-182 DATE: July 28, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 7, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on November 24, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered, entrusted the child to a kinship foster family, namely the one of Ms.

C, their paternal grandmother and ordered that the child be gradually reintegrated under the father’s care as soon as the situation allows it, until July 31, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation of the child is no longer endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii, but continues to be under

section 38 (c). The DYP also submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and asks that she be entrusted to a kinship foster family, namely to Ms. C and gradually reintegrated under the father’s care as soon as the situation allows it and according to her capacity to reintegrate.

The DYP also asks that the child be gradually reintegrated under the mother’s care on a shared custody manner with the father, as soon as the situation allows it and according to her capacity to reintegrate, on the condition that the mother complete the treatment program in Center A, the whole until July 31, 2023 Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Justine Bergeron. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Jimmy Brochu-Labrecque.

He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is 10 ½ years old. She is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. She is waiting for the reintegration with the father to happen. [ 6 ] The child has a sister Y (7 y). The Court is also seized with her situation. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On January 30, 2019 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. The child was 7 ½ y years old.

The DYP intervened in 2017, following a report of physical abuse from the mother. The child was entrusted for 30 days, and after was returned under the parents’ care under voluntary measures with a follow-up. The parents displayed alcohol consumption issues. The father had to regularly travel to Town A, and he expressed being scared to let the children alone with the mother due to her mental state. The father was detained a few times for infractions related to drugs trafficking. Since November 2018, the parents are separated and exercised a shared custody.

The child asked to live in Town A far from the alcohol consumption. The parents were in conflict about the modalities of the custody. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and maintained the child with her parents. The Court determined the modalities of custody, the whole until January 31, 2020.

[ 8 ] On February 28, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The parents went back together and worked on their issues. The situation remained fragile, but the children confirmed being well in their family. The Court maintained the children with the parents until June 30, 2020. [ 9 ] On April 8, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the children to their maternal aunt, Ms. D and with the paternal grandmother if the placement with Ms. D does not work. [ 10 ] On May 14, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The parents’ situation degenerated.

They increase their alcohol consumption, and they fought in front of the children who were very scared. The children were entrusted to their maternal aunt, but this placement could not be a long-term one due to the alcohol consumption issues of the aunt. The paternal grandmother living down south agreed to foster the children for the summer. A teacher would be ready to foster them during the school year.

The Court entrusted the children to a foster family specifying that they would be with their paternal grandmother during the summer, the whole until May 15, 2021. [ 11 ] On November 27, 2020 , the Court entrusted the children under their paternal grandmother’s care under provisional measures. [ 12 ] On April 19, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The children came back living with the parents shortly after the last decision. In November 2021, the parents were highly intoxicated and the oldest one had to call the police. The children had a poor hygiene, and they were scared about their parents.

The Court noted that the reintegration had been done prematurely and had caused serious prejudice to the children. The Court also insisted on the importance to maintain the children related with their cultural heritage. The Court entrusted the children to their paternal grandmother, prohibited the return of the children under their parent’s care before the end of the measures, the whole until December 23, 2021. [ 13 ] On November 24, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The parents took serious steps to improve their situation. The father completed a close therapy and receive a post-care follow-up.

He would move close to his mother to be closer to his children. The mother also received service and should entrust Center A in December 2021. She also wished to move down south. The children were doing very well with their paternal grandmother. The Court entrusted the children under their paternal grandmother’s care and authorized a gradual reintegration with the father first and with the mother if she completes Center A, the whole until July 31, 2022.

Facts [ 14 ] Since the last court hearing, the child remained entrusted to her paternal grandmother and she did very well. [ 15 ] The father is sober since January 2022, but recognizes that the alcohol consumption continues to be an issue for him. He addressed this issue by attending a therapy and since he finished it, he attends AA meetings. [ 16 ] He now lives in the Laurentides region not far from his mother’s place. He offers a good collaboration with the DYP services. The children benefit from regular and frequent contact with him and those contacts are positive.

He receives them at his place from Thursday evening to Monday morning. [ 17 ] The mother is still struggling with her alcohol consumption issue, but as the father, she took steps to address it. She is in Center A since February 2022. She testifies that the therapy is very beneficial for her. [ 18 ] The mother also offers a good collaboration with the DYP services. Being currently down south, she had visits with her daughters according to the rules of Center A. As for now, she has 2 phone calls per week and one physical contact every 3 weeks.

Those contacts are mostly positive, but the DYP has difficulty to have an honest portrait of the contacts and sometimes the version of the children is different from the mother’s. According to the children, the mother tends to put pressure on them for them to come back living up north with her. [ 19 ] The mother almost finished her therapy. Different options had been suggested to her for the post-therapy, but until recently, she was still hesitant between going back to the North and staying in the apartment provided by Center A in Town A. At the hearing, she confirmed that she had chosen to stay in Town A.

Such decision will help to maintain regular contact with her daughters. [ 20 ] Despite those improvements, the parents recognize that their situation remains fragile and that they still need the DYP’s support. [ 21 ] In July, the DYP had to evaluate a report received about sexual gesture from the part of the parent on one of the children. After investigation, the DYP concluded that the facts were not founded. Analysis [ 22 ] As alleged by the DYP, admitted by the parents and showed by the evidence, the situation of the child is still endangered under

section 38 (c), as the parental conflict is still present, but the situation is no longer endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii. [ 23 ] Those 2 girls had a lot of chance to be surrounded by a very loving grandmother who did not hesitate to come to pick up them and to take care of them when it was necessary. She also made sure that the children adapted well to their new environment and as we can see, the children evolved very positively. [ 24 ] During that time, the parents took steps to address their issues, and it was urgent that they did.

The situation in which they put their children was intolerable. [ 25 ] The parents demonstrate their capacity to make positive changes and although the process is on a good path, the situation remains fragile. It is important to keep in mind what the situation was when the DYP had to intervene. Those positive changes will have to be properly rooted to allow the positive situation to continue.

[ 26 ] Waiting for that, the children need to stay at their paternal grandmother place to maintain their stability with very regular contact with both parents. [ 27 ] The reintegration with the father will be feasible. The Court does not close the door to a reintegration with the mother, but when it will be possible, maybe the DYP’s intervention would not be necessary anymore. Doing so, the parents will have to seize the Superior Court. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still endangered under

section 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are no longer endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a kinship foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely Ms.

C; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the father’s care as soon as the situation allows it and according to her capacity to reintegrate; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother pursue her treatment program at Center A; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the mother’s care on a share custody manner with the father, as soon as the situation allows it, and according to her capacity to reintegrate, on the condition that the mother complete the treatment program in Center A; [ 36 ] ORDERS that if and when the shared custody is in place, the Director of Youth Protection make sure that the child continue to have contact with her paternal grandmother; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents be involved in the health care of the child; [ 41 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits at the father’s and the mother’s household, if the mother completes the Center A’s program and if the child is in a shared custody; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection with transparency; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until July 31, 2023, or for a period of 1 year. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Justine Carli, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Justine Bergeron, attorney for the mother Me Jimmy Brochu-Labrecque, attorney for the father Date of hearing: July 28, 2022