2015 QCCQ 18827, 2015 QCCQ 18827

Protection de la jeunesse — 155503 2015 QCCQ 18827 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-020957-080 / 525-41-020956-082 / 525-41-022825-095 Date: July 8, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2004 In the case of: Y Born on […], 2008 In the case of: Z Born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father of X -and- C , the father of Y and Z The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) JD2620 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of July 8, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with three motions for revision of an order rendered by the honourable Normand Bastien, on October 28, 2014, whereby the now ten, seven and five year-old children, X , and Y and Z , were entrusted to a foster home with aid, counsel and assistance, until they reach age of majority. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motions for revision dated April 17, 2015, are as follows: 3.1. the child is doing well in her foster home; 3.3. the mother’s situation continue to be unstable; 3.4. the mother’s collaboration with the professionals involved continues to be difficult; 3.5. the mother only attended five (5) of the eleven (11) scheduled visits with the child; 3.6. for most of her absences, the mother did not call to cancel the visits; 3.7. the mother continues to have inappropriate moments during visits in front of the child; 3.8. the mother has been authorized to call the foster home to speak with the child but has not done so since the last court order; 3.9. the mother met a social intervener from a community clinic in order for her to obtain needed services so she can have more visits

with the child and to have the supervision lifted, however, she did not follow through with this process; In addition it is alleged in X’s case that: 3.2. the child has made small overall improvements but continues to struggle with personal hygiene; 3.10. the father continues not to be involved in the child’s life; Regarding Y and Z: 3.9. there have been no contacts with the father since March 2014 (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the children remain entrusted to a foster home, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until they each reach the age of majority, albeit with certain changes, namely regarding the frequency and modality of contacts with their mother. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lenis, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] X’s father was absent but represented by Me Morin who ignored most of the alleged facts yet consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Y and Z’s father did not appear and the Court proceeded in his absence. [ 8 ] Me Pelletier, on behalf of the children, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 and D-2 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [social worker 1], dated March 30, 2015; D-2: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated June 30, 2015. [ 10 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motions and the parties agree to amend the measures as recommended. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motions are well-founded and that the recommendations are in the children's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children, X , and Y and Z , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 14 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their mother be determined by consent amongst the parties and that failing such consent that contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and that they occur minimally once every two weeks for a period of two hours; [ 15 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts may be extended, if appropriate plans are in place; [ 16 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign any consents required in case of medical emergency for the children and, consequently, WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and allows the Director of Youth Protection to exercise them with respect to emergency medical situations regarding the children; [ 17 ] ORDERS that all non-incompatible measures rendered on October 28, 2014 by the honourable Normand Bastien be maintained; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X , and Y and Z , to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 19 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 20 ] THE WHOLE until the children’s age of majority.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pelletier Attorney for the children Me Alexandre Lenis Attorney for the mother Me Marc Morin Attorney for the father’s X TD/vl