2019 QCCQ 15202, 2019 QCCQ 15202

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910353 2019 QCCQ 15202 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000585-148 DATE: January 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on August 30, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ 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, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on October 13, 2016, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to the foster family of Ms. C until his majority. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends the Court to entrust the child to a foster family until December 30, 2019. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel.

The mother’s lawyer has her position and is ready to proceed in her absence. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented.

Me Apollon asks the permission to proceed in the absence of the parents. [ 5 ] The Court authorizes to proceed in the absence of the parents considering that they were dully served, that they mentioned that they didn’t wish to be present at the hearing, that Me Tommasel has the position of her client, the mother, and that it is in the best interest of the child. [ 6 ] The child who is 8 years old is absent, but represented by Me Ivan Lazarov. The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that he agrees to remain where he is, he likes it and he’s happy to be with his brother Y.

Historical situation [ 7 ] On August 7, 2014 , on provisional measures, the child was entrusted under her paternal grandmother’s care. [ 8 ] On October 16, 2014 , the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [1] . X was 3 years old. He is the only child from the parents’ union, but they have other children born from other respective unions. The parents displayed alcohol and conjugal violence issues. They did not attend the medical appointment for X and did not collaborate with the DYP Service.

X was entrusted to his paternal grandmother, but she did not realize the seriousness of the parents’ situation and let the child go to their place even if they are intoxicated and aggressive. The grandmother also had alcohol issues and finished renouncing to foster X. The Court entrusted him to his aunt, Ms. C and ordered specific health care and health services namely the CLSC or a therapist until August 21, 2015. [ 9 ] On August 20, 2015 , the Court noted that the parents’ collaboration was poor until March 2015, when it started to get better.

They recognized their difficulties and expressed the desire to go to treatment. Unfortunately, their motivation stopped one month later. The Court maintained X in a foster family and ordered specific health care and health services, more specifically a follow-up with a

psychoeducator or an occupational therapist. [ 10 ] On February 18, 2016 , the evidence revealed that the parents get separated. The mother still had alcohol issues and did not seek help. She did not collaborate with the DYP. X was at his aunt’s place for the last 18 months, and he was very attached to her. He could have tantrums for a few hours when he sees his mother, but the aunt was able to manage the situation. The Court entrusted X to his aunt, Ms. C until October 31, 2016. [ 11 ] On October 13, 2016 , the Court noted that X was still doing very well at his aunt’s.

He had quite daily contact with his father. With the mother, the contacts are less regular. The parents did not seek help for their issues. Despite their separation, they still had a conflictual relationship. The Court entrusted X until majority under Ms. C’s care. [ 12 ] On December 6, 2018 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and X was entrusted to a foster family. Facts [ 13 ] X stayed at his aunt’s place until July 2018. The DYP had to take the decision to remove him from her care, because of she was often ill and also frequently consumed alcohol.

The DYP was concerned about the supervision offered to X. [ 14 ] Then, he was entrusted to Ms D. Ms. D’s son declared guilty of charge of assault on a minor child. He was sentenced and released with condition not to be in presence of young children. The family signed a contract and engaged that their son would not sleep there and will never be alone with the foster children. After few months, the contract was not respected and the son did everything he wanted. The foster family was closed. [ 15 ] Starting on November 29, 2018, X was entrusted to Ms. E who already fosters Y, X’s brother.

X is doing very well there, and Ms E is very happy to have him. Unfortunately, Ms. E does not think to be able to engage herself for a permanent plan as she did for Y because of her age. She will be 70 years old when X would turn 18, her plan was to be retired and move back down South when Y turns 18 years old. [ 16 ] The DYP will work on a long-term placement for X. [ 17 ] Actually, the child is doing very well at home and at school. He is described as very brilliant and obedient. He likes playing outside and hockey. [ 18 ] The situation of the parents remained the same.

Many police interventions were made while they were intoxicated. They did not seek help for their addiction and personal issues. [ 19 ] They maintained frequent contact with X as they live in the same community, and X was fostered by family members until the end of November 2018. Ms. E insures to maintain those contacts also. Analysis [ 20 ] Unfortunately, it was not possible to maintain X in the environment where he was for a long time and where he develops very strong bonds.

He was with family members in the same community, and everything was supposed to go well for the next year. [ 21 ] Now he is with his brother and he is very happy with Ms. E, but as it is not a permanent plan, except if Ms. E change her mind, the DYP will have to find another environment shortly.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the institute operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain parental authority from the parents and granted them to the Director of Youth Protection or any person designated by him; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 33 ] THE WHOLE until December 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 16, 2019