2017 QCCQ 8504, 2017 QCCQ 8504

Protection de la jeunesse — 173400 2017 QCCQ 8504 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001758-140 640-41-001759-148 640-41-001760-146 DATE: July 27, 2017 (February 17, 2017) ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 Y, born on [...], 2005 Z, born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ( sections 95(1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act, CQLR c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing 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 (D.Y.P.) submitted to the Court motions for revision of a decision rendered on February 16, 2016, in which the Court entrusted the children to a foster family until November 30, 2016, and ordered that a life plan be drawn up for them. [ 2 ] The D.Y.P. recommended placement until the age of majority of the children Z and Y and a placement of nine months for X. [ 3 ] The mother agreed with the recommendations for the children Z and Y, who are entrusted to a paternal uncle, and asked to know who would be the foster family before agreeing to a permanent placement for X. [ 4 ] The father was not very involved in the situation of the children. [ 5 ] The mother was still struggling with addiction to alcohol.

Even though she was putting some effort into managing her drinking habits, she still had to deal with her personal issues, and entrusting the children to her again would put them at risk of neglect related to substance abuse, which had an impact on her parenting ability. [ 6 ] In the past, there had been two attempts to reintegrate the children with the mother, but without success.

The multiple changes of living environments and the unsuccessful reintegration attempts with the mother affected the children. [ 7 ] The maximum length of placement had been reached for the three children under the Youth Protection Act . They needed continuity of care and stable living conditions on a permanent basis. [ 8 ] Fortunately, these children showed great capacity to deal with their family situation. They had great capacity to adapt. [ 9 ] The children Z and Y developed very positively in their foster family. Mr. C is the paternal uncle of the children and they bonded with their paternal family.

The paternal family showed great concern for the well-being of the children and their development.

[ 10 ] The child X’s main attachment figure was her adoptive maternal grandmother, Ms. D. She spent a lot of time with her. Ms. D and her husband were willing to take care of her until she reached the age of majority. The D.Y.P. still wanted to assess this environment to be sure she would be safe there. Her adoptive grandmother also fostered her 19-year-old grandchild, who had engaged in sexual behaviour with respect to X in the past.

X felt comfortable being in his presence because her grandmother took the necessary steps to protect her by being sure there was always an adult present in the house. [ 11 ] Extending the current placement of X for another period of nine months would provide an opportunity to assess all the possibilities to offer her a better life plan.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 13 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on February 16, 2016; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2003, Y, born on [...], 2005 and Z, born on [...], 2007, continues to be in danger; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the children Y and Z be entrusted to a foster family, namely, with E and C with, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center until they reach the age of majority; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child X be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center, for a period of nine months; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s parents take an active

part in the application of all of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contact between the children and the parents be determined by the Director with respect to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children, Y and Z, and the children’s family, until the children reach the age of majority; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, X, and the child’s family for a period of nine months, until August 29 , 2017; [ 23 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the judgment; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2025 for Z, [...] , 2023 for Y and August 29 , 2017 for X. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Kimon Kling Attorney for the children Mtre. Aubree Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 29, 2016