2011 QCCQ 9201, 2011 QCCQ 9201

Protection de la jeunesse — 112858 2011 QCCQ 9201 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N os : 640-41-001175-097 640-41-001176-095 640-41-001177-093 640-41-001178-091 640-41-001179-099 640-41-001180-097 DATE : May 11 th , 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN : X Born on […], 2007 Y Born on […], 2005 Z Born on […], 2003 A Born on […], 2002 B Born on […], 2000 C Born on […], 1998 [INTERVENANTE 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in town B (Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- D , residing and domiciled in town B (Quebec), district A; Mother -and- E , detained at the C Detention Centre at […] (province A); Father -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits to the Court a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered October 13 th , 2010 in which the Court entrusted Y and X to a foster home for a period of six months.

The Court was also taking judicial notice that the DYP had the intention to prepare a life plan for X and that the DYP would make efforts to find an Inuit family to prepare a life plan for Y. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection also submits to the Court a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered on April 7th,

2010 in which the Court entrusted C, B, Z and A to a foster home for a period of one year recommending their reintegration with their mother after eight months. The Court also ordered that a life plan be determined for all the children. [ 3 ] Since these last Court orders, the Director of Youth Protection alleges a number of new facts to obtain the revision of these orders. [ 4 ] To address the children's need, the Director today recommends to the Court that X be entrusted to a foster family until her majority.

As for the other children, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that they be entrusted to a foster family for one year in order to stabilize their situation and prepare a life plan for each of them. As for the contacts between the children and the parents, the Director recommends that these contacts be supervised. [ 5 ] Both parents are represented by counsel and they agree with the recommendations of the DYP for Y, Z, A, B and C. For X, they disagree with the recommended placement period.

They suggest 12 months instead of majority. [ 6 ] After hearing the evidence, the attorney representing the children reminds the Court that all the children should already be benefiting from a life plan. He says that the previous orders from Justice Louis Grégoire in October 2010 and from Justice Jacques R. Roy in April 2010 already ordered the Director to prepare such life plans. The attorney for the children says time is not neutral for these children. Since the parents have not made any changes, the children should benefit from a permanent life plan, as prescribed by law.

For these reasons, he is agreeing that X be entrusted in a foster family until her majority, but as for the five other children, he asks the Court to give a shorter delay to the DYP to prepare these life plans in the best interest of his young clients. Evidence since the last Court orders [ 7 ] The situation of the parents remains the same. [ 8 ] The mother still consumes alcohol and has not made any attempts to change her dysfunctional behaviour. She does not cooperate with the DYP. As she often does before a Court hearing, the mother asked for services on March 8 th , 2011.

She testifies that she is waiting for an alcohol-abuse therapy and has started seeing somebody from AA. [ 9 ] The father is still at the penitentiary. The evidence is unclear as to when he will be released. In the most optimistic scenario, he could be released in October 2011, but this is not yet confirmed. [ 10 ] At the penitentiary, the father benefited from different therapies to solve his personal issues. [ 11 ] The father apologizes again for his violent behaviour that led him to the penitentiary. He says he does not want to do it again and shows remorse.

He knows the family suffered from what he did. [ 12 ] As for the children, the evidence reveals the following facts. X [ 13 ] X is four years old. She has been living in the foster family of F for more than two years. She is closely bound to her foster mother. The family meets her needs. [ 14 ] F is willing to keep X until her majority. She says she is not afraid or nervous to continue to care for her, as she is part of her family since she was a baby. She is open to maintain contacts between X and her parents. X lives in an Inuit home.

She is well integrated with all the members of the family. [ 15 ] The mother saw X on a few occasions. She remains very cold and unaffectionate towards the child. The father has not seen X since he was at the penitentiary. Y [ 16 ] Y is five years old and he is stable in his non-Inuit foster family since January 2010. The DYP has made several attempts to find an Inuit foster home but did not succeed. His current foster family is not prepared to invest into a life plan with Y. However, they are willing to do a progressive integration with a new foster family when the DYP will find one.

Z [ 17 ] Z is seven years old. He has been living in the foster home of Mrs. G for one year. He is doing well in school. The foster parents are presently thinking about the possibility to invest in a life plan with Z. [ 18 ] The parents are not involved in Z's life. There was no contact between the parents and him in the last months. A [ 19 ] A is nine years old. She has been living in the foster home of Mrs. H since March 2011. A had to be moved in a new foster home because the previous one had a hard time with her behaviour at night. A was running around at all times without notice.

The foster family got really worried and decided not to keep her anymore. [ 20 ] A is now experiencing a “honeymoon” with her new foster family. The DYP hopes that this family will provide her with

stability. B [ 21 ] B is eleven years old. He has been placed in A Residential Treatment Services in province A since November 2010. Over there, he is doing fine and his foster family, I and J, have built a positive relationship with him. B is functioning very well with them and he is well supported by the workers. He is attending public school in grade four. With special help, B is functioning very well in class. [ 22 ] B talks with his family on the phone regularly. He calls his mother and grandfather and the conversations are positive for him. B still needs a lot of structure around him to be able to improve.

C [ 23 ] C is thirteen years old. He is living in the foster home of Mrs. K, his maternal aunt in A. He is late in school and does not do much work. On March 15 th , 2010, C came with a friend at the DYP's office. Both children were shocked and screaming. They said that the mother was drunk that afternoon and she slapped C in the face. C's friend got punched too.

Analysis and measures [ 24 ] The Court concludes that both parents are not in a better position this year than last year to recover the responsibility of their children. [ 25 ] The mother is still struggling with a drinking problem and has only started being motivated to treat it. As revealed by the evidence, every time the Court hearing comes, the mother starts to be motivated. The Court hopes that this time, the mother is serious. [ 26 ] As for the father, he has been undergoing some therapies at the penitentiary which will certainly be helpful when the time will come to meet his children once again.

The children have suffered a lot from his previous behaviours and also from the fact that he disappeared from their life for almost two years now. [ 27 ] As the attorney for the children says, the law tells the Court that after a certain delay, the Court must clarify a life plan for the children. The children cannot wait all their life for parents to become able to care for them. [ 28 ] For all the children, this delay has expired.

The previous Court decisions were already asking the Director of Youth Protection to propose permanent life plans for the children. [ 29 ] Unfortunately, the evidence reveals that it was not possible to prepare these plans. For various reasons that are well explained in the reports, the Court comes to the conclusion that these life plans could just not be put in place. [ 30 ] Unfortunately, neither the Court nor the DYP can create resources.

However, the Court reminds the Director that it is urgent for him to find families in which the children will be able to invest themselves. [ 31 ] As for X, the Director has presented a life plan that makes sense. The Court thinks that it is now time for X to benefit from it. Accordingly, the Court will entrust X to a foster family until her majority. This does not prevent her from benefiting from her parents if there are in a position to maintain positive contacts with her. [ 32 ] As for the five other children, the Court was tempted to reduce the period to six months as suggested by the children's attorney.

However, to make sure that these plans include the evaluation of the children's adaptation to their new families, the Court thinks that a period of one year will be necessary to get a full portrait. [ 33 ] Moreover, by this time, the father will probably be released from the penitentiary.

The Court will then benefit from the evolution of the father's situation who has been in the past the main caregiver. [ 34 ] Since the DYP has not yet provided the children with a permanent life plan, could the father still be an option for some of the children? [ 35 ] The question remains. [ 36 ] In one year, the Court thinks that all these questions could be better answered. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the present petition; REVISES the decisions rendered on October 13 th , 2010 by Justice Louis Grégoire and on April 7 th , 2010 by Justice Jacques R.

Roy; DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; ORDERS that X be entrusted to the foster home of Mrs. F until she reaches the age of majority; ORDERS that B, Z, A, C and Y be entrusted to a foster home for a period of one (1) year; ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be maintained and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of conditions, frequency and duration;

ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents; AUTHORIZES Mrs. F to sign medical, school and travel consents for X; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign medical, school and travel consents for Y, Z, A, B, and C; RECOMMENDS that contacts between the siblings be encouraged; ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; ENTRUSTS the situation of X, Y, Z, A, B et C to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C.

Me Robert-André Adam Attorney for the DYP Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Attorney for the children Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the father Me Sarah Plamondon Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: April 19 th , 2011