2020 QCCQ 10695, 2020 QCCQ 10695

Protection de la jeunesse — 206985 2020 QCCQ 10695 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] « Youth Division » No: 614-41-000565-202; 614-41-000566-200; 614-41-000567-208 DATE: June 17, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of […] of Health and Social Services […], working in Town A.

APPLICANT and X, born on […], 2011 Y, born on […], 2013 Z, born on […], 2017 CHILDREN and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits applications asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X, 9 years old, Y, 7 years old and Z, 3 years old, endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 1° iii) (lack of supervision) and for the three children and 38 c) (psychological ill-treatment) only for X. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father who is currently detained in Jail A, is present via videoconference and represented by Mtre. Michel Grenier. Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub acts on behalf of the children on legal mandates and Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka assists the applicant. [ 3 ] The mother, duly served, is neither present nor represented by counsel. Mtre. Grenier declares that the mother contacted him the week before the court asking him to find her a lawyer.

The mother has received the names of all the lawyers practicing in youth protection, but it seems that she never mandated anyone to assist her. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in her absence. [ 5 ] From the admissions of the father, the content of the reports filed and the testimony of the applicant, the Court has preponderant evidence that the security and the development of the children are endangered. [ 6 ] The father was first detained in 2017 and then released. In July 2018, he was incarcerated again, convicted on August 15, 2018, and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment. He is supposed to be released next August.

He has plans to attend a six-week program for substance abuse in Oka or Moosonee, anger, grief and abandonment workshops and to participate in the wellness journey next March. Upon his return in the community, he is going to live with his grandmother. [ 7 ] The father is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection stating that: “My kids have gone through enough.” [ 8 ] He says that his relationship with the mother lasted ten years and alcohol and drugs were part of their lives. [ 9 ] In January 2020, the Director of Youth Protection received a report concerning the children.

They were removed from the care of their mother as she was intoxicated. [ 10 ] From February 10 to March 6, 2020, the mother participated in a Wellness Journey. Therefore, the children were returned to her care on March 9. The day after, the mother signed voluntary measures. She made a commitment to seek help regarding her issues. [ 11 ] Unfortunately, the mother relapsed. On April 23, 2020, the children had to be removed again and placed in foster homes.

Around lunchtime, the mother was home, intoxicated with 2 other adults, one of them being passed out on the couch. The children were home at that time. [ 12 ] Concerning X, who is of school age, she had been absent every morning from September to January, which is very concerning. [ 13 ] Moreover, X witnessed an event where the mother was beaten by people at her place. She saw all the blood. She was the one who protected her siblings from seeing what was happening.

When met by the Social Worker in January, the child recalled the incident. [ 14 ] The Court has preponderant evidence that the security and development of the children are endangered because of lack of supervision, especially when the mother is under the influence of alcohol and because she is not able to ensure that X is at school every day and also for psychological ill-treatment regarding X in relation with the event of violence that happened in January. [ 15 ] The Social Worker testified that the mother acknowledges her problem with alcohol consumption. [ 16 ] Since the placement of the children, she had only one visit with them at the end of May and does not call the Social Worker get information about the evolution of the children. [ 17 ] The children are doing well.

They do not ask for their mother or their father. The Social Worker will establish a

schedule for access rights, but for that, she needs the collaboration of the mother. [ 18 ] When cross-examined by the children’s lawyer, the Social Worker agrees that a period of six months of placement would be enough to see if the mother mobilized herself or not. [ 19 ] The father is interested to have access rights with the children and he is willing to respect their rhythm because of his long absence since his imprisonment. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development X, Y and Z are endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 1° iii) for the three children and, as for X, also under

section 38 c); [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in foster families for a period of 6 months without any reintegration; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access rights between the parents and the children be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities, including the presence of a third party as often and as long as required by the situation, and that these access rights be established in the best interest of the children; [ 24 ] ORDERS that both parents be and remain sober when in presence of the children. [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the children in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother take active steps to address her unresolved substance abuse issues and that she follow the recommendations of the professionals; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the father seek help for his substance abuse issues; [ 28 ] ORDERS the father to participate and collaborate to anger management, grief and abandonment workshops; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of 6 months; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain and share information from service providers working with the family as to progress, attendance and collaboration; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, meet with the worker upon request and inform the worker of any change of coordinates; [ 32 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate with the execution of the measures ordered if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X, Y and Z to the Director of Youth Protection […] Health and Social Services […] who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira, Lempicka, Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub, Avocats inc. – A Attorney for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Michel Grenier, Avocat – B Attorney for the father Date of hearing: June 17, 2020