2014 QCCQ 14898, 2014 QCCQ 14898

Protection de la jeunesse — 143136 2014 QCCQ 14898 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-003696-104 DATE: April 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2005 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 mother presents a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered on August 29, 2012 concerning her child X, born on […], 2005. [ 2 ] The judgment of which the mother requests the revision, provides the application of protective measures for 3 years, more notably that the child remain entrusted to a foster family and that her contacts be determined following mutual agreement and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection.

Considering the positive evolution of the mother's situation, the Court also permits that the withdrawal of the supervision of her contacts, by consent of the parties. [ 3 ] The mother alleges that her personal situation continues to progress and stabilize, justifying a revision of the measures and more particularly the return of her son to her care.

[ 4 ] The Court dispenses service to the father, as the evidence provides that he is of unknown address and not involved in his son's life. [ 5 ] The parties present at the hearing consign their admissions in the Court record and agree with the mother's request for revision. They jointly propose the application of various protective measures for a further period of 6 months. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] In the last judgment, the Court recognizes that the mother makes strides in maintaining her sobriety and stabilizing her personal situation.

The evidence demonstrates that since that time, her efforts are ongoing and that it is appropriate to conclude that it is there is no longer a signification risk of her return to her previous lifestyle. [ 8 ] More specifically, the Court notes; ➢ The mother is sober since autumn 2011; ➢ The mother maintains regular access to her child; ➢ The mother actively collaborates with the Director of Youth Protection; ➢ As of December 2012, the parties agree to the withdrawal of supervision of the contacts; ➢ Since January 2013, the child visits his mother on a regular and extended basis, including vacation periods; ➢ The mother successfully completes programs in regards to her alcohol dependency and parenting skills; ➢ The mother is employed, as well as being a full-time student; ➢ The mother lives independently with her youngest son, born on […], 2012; ➢ The mother offers a stable and adequate home environment; [ 9 ] The child and his half-sibling, Y, are the subjects of protective measures since 2009 and generally reside in the care of their maternal grandmother since that time. [ 10 ] The children wish to return to their mother's care, while specifying their wish to continue to see their grandparents on a regular basis. [ 11 ] The evidence shows that the maternal grandmother supports her daughter's efforts for reunification with her children.

Notwithstanding, she remains a significant person in the children's lives and the parties agree that it is in the children's best interests that the measures maintain and promote this relationship. [ 12 ] The father, on the other hand, has no implication in his son's life, notwithstanding that he is indirectly forwarded information regarding the intervention.

Considering the evidence and in order to ensure that the child receive immediate attention to his various needs, the Court allows that a partial withdrawal of the father's parental rights is necessary, to the mother's benefit. [ 13 ] Consequently, after considering the evidence, the Court determines that the facts justify a revision of the previous judgment.

As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the conclusions put forth represent the child's best interests, and for these reasons, the Court ratifies these. [ 14 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] REVISES the order rendered on August 29, 2012; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the mother; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family for a period of 6 months; [ 19 ] TAKES ACT that the child will have extended and regular access to his maternal grand-parents; [ 20 ] PERMITS the Director of Youth Protection to meet with the child in order to verify the progress of the situation; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother report on a regular basis to the Director of Youth Protection in order to report on the evolution of the situation; [ 22 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the father, Mr.

B and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign the authorizations required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures;

__________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the child Date of hearing: April 16, 2014