2014 QCCQ 19093, 2014 QCCQ 19093

Protection de la jeunesse — 147196 2014 QCCQ 19093 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000646-141 DATE: December 29, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] in CITY A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at […] in CITY B , district A (Quebec) […] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on June 4, 2014. On that date, justice Nancy McKenna declares the security or development of the child born on [...] , 2014, endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . As one of the measures, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family for a period of four months. [ 2 ] The applicant states that the review of the decision is necessary for different reasons enumerated in her application. As one of the measures she asks the Court to entrust the child to a foster family for a period of five months. She asks also that the contacts between the mother and the child be reduced to once a month. All the measures are asked in the perspective of a permanent life project that will be presented at the end of the delays under

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented. She agrees with the placement of her child in a foster family for a period of five months. She asks the Court to maintain the current frequency and modalities of her contacts with her child. [ 4 ] She states that her contacts with her child are more regular since she has completed a treatment for her drug and alcohol addiction.

The mother asks the Court to at least allow her to visit her child twice a week for a period of two hours each time. [ 5 ] On November 26, the Court took under advisement among other issues the mother's access rights. [ 6 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence.

The facts Evolution of the situation since June 4, 2014 • Mother-child contacts [ 7 ] On June 12, 2014, justice McKenna expresses very well the situation as for the bond and the contacts mother-child [1] : [7] The mother expressed to the applicant the wish to care for X and requested time to get the necessary help and services. Considering her personal history, concrete measures were suggested to her such as a treatment program for drug abuse, as well as an aftercare program and parenting classes.

In an attempt to develop an attachment bond between the mother and the child, the applicant put in place two hour long visits, three times a week. Out of the sixteen scheduled visits, the mother missed half of them. For the visits that did occur, the mother did not have the means to bring the proper necessities for X in terms of diapers and a bottle of milk. A few days before the hearing, the mother entered a closed treatment program. [ 8 ] On June 4, 2014, the child's situation is heard in Youth Court. The mother is absent.

She informed the applicant that she would be in a detoxification center at the time of the hearing. On June 11, 2014, the mother told the applicant that she left the detoxification center on June 2 (namely 24 hours after her admission). The mother explained that she was absent on June 4, because she wished to stay with her family in B area.

[ 9 ] The applicant suggested the date of June 16, 2014 as the mother wished to have a visit with her daughter. The

schedule for the month of June was established. The applicant offered to the mother two visits per week for a period of two hours per visit. The mother will be present for her visits on June 16 and 18, 2014. [ 10 ] The mother made a request to a nurse to work on parental skills. The request was closed because the mother did not show up, same situation for the Centre Normand. • June [ 11 ] June 23: The mother left a message saying that she will not attend the visit. She called back at eight in the morning to say she will be present.

She came at the visit wearing a pyjama top and had forgotten the diaper bag. [ 12 ] June 25: The mother did not come to the visit because her spouse's car had broken down. [ 13 ] June 30: The mother came to the visit half-asleep wearing her pyjamas. The contact was postponed because the foster family misread the schedule. • July [ 14 ] July 2: The mother did not come to the visit because of a dispute with her spouse. It was the child's vaccination day. [ 15 ] In July, ten visits were proposed to the mother. She will be present for three of them (July 4, 14 and 23).

Many reasons are invoked by the mother for not being present. • August and September [ 16 ] In August, eight visits were scheduled. The mother attended only one, namely on August 4 and she was tired. [ 17 ] Throughout the months visits were scheduled twice a week. The applicant arranged the transportation for the mother. [ 18 ] On September 22, 2014, there was an agreement between the mother and the applicant concerning the contacts.

If the mother could visit her daughter on a regular basis to wit twice a week then she could have three hours visits. [ 19 ] It did not work because of the mother's fickleness (not ready for the visit, etc.). The situation caused some people providing transportation to resign. [ 20 ] The mother encountered serious problems in regards to her budget. She could provide things to her daughter only on July 14. [ 21 ] At the end of August, the mother informed the applicant that she will go to a detoxification center and will be leaving the city for a period of 21 days.

Throughout her stay the applicant supported the mother. The mother completed the treatment and was fully involved. [ 22 ] The mother again asked help from the CSSSA regarding her parenting skills. They offered her meetings to discuss with her baby's development so that she could accompany her child throughout the various stages. The mother did not attend most of the meetings. According to the mother she does not need that kind of support. [ 23 ] The mother made a request for outpatient addiction help.

She has received help from Centre Normand. • October [ 24 ] The mother attended four of the eight visits with her daughter. • November [ 25 ] The mother attended five visits. [ 26 ] The mother had an appointment with her family physician and did not show up. She did not submit to the drug tests as agreed. [ 27 ] The applicant noticed that the mother demonstrated good sensitivity towards her daughter when she was with her in the playroom.

She was concerned about her child well being and very meticulous in the care she gave to her. [ 28 ] According to the applicant when the mother is not in her child's presence she abandons her parental responsibilities letting her lifestyle take over. The mother [ 29 ] The mother is known to the Centre Jeunesse since February 2009. [ 30 ] She is 24 years old. X is her fifth child. All of her other children have been removed from her care. [ 31 ] The mother is on welfare since she is 18 years old.

She was unable to complete her schooling and to enter the job market. [ 32 ] For a very long time she lived in a disorganised manner and frequented environment of consumption. She has long history of drug abuses that impacts all aspects of her life. • Mother's current situation

[ 33 ] She lives with her spouse at her spouse's house. They argue a lot and have splitted often. Money is an issue because her spouse pays for everything. Drug also was an issue because her spouse was using drugs. [ 34 ] The mother admits that she wants to leave her spouse because she cheats on her. She did not tell her spouse yet because she needed a ride for this Court hearing. [ 35 ] The mother has her own apartment and thinks she can live by her own. [ 36 ] She admits still using marijuana even if she has completed a treatment for drug abuse.

This is the reason why she did not go to the drug tests asked by the applicant. [ 37 ] The contacts with the child are set early in the morning in order to allow the mother to feed their children. The Director of Youth Protection wants also to check if the parents wake up in the morning. [ 38 ] The mother admits that it is difficult to wake up in the morning. Also she is not focused. [ 39 ] She admits having missed one of the contacts with her child because she preferred going shopping with her spouse. [ 40 ] She suffers from ADHD.

However she does not take any medication. [ 41 ] For the first time in her life she has completed a treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. She has a follow-up with a social worker. [ 42 ] The mother wants to have contacts with her child because she is her daughter. She does not have any specific plan for her. [ 43 ] The mother admits that she has many personal issues to deal with. The child [ 44 ] She is over six months of age, calm and good humoured. She sleeps well and keeps her routine. All her vaccinations and appointments are up to date.

Her development follows the stages well. [ 45 ] At the moment the child does not live in a long-term foster family. Decision [ 46 ] The applicant asks the Court to entrust the child to a foster family for a period of five months. The applicant intends to clarify a life project for the child and to present it to the Court in April. [ 47 ] According to the applicant the mother personal issues are not limited to drug and alcohol abuse.

Even after successfully completing a treatment the mother was able to offer her daughter only three weeks of stability. [ 48 ] The applicant's opinion is the following [2] : « […] In the youth protection's opinion, we must offer the parents time to get better but there must be a willingness and an ability on the part of this parent. »

« The chronicity of the problems, the previous situation with her siblings, all the personal objectives the mother was to reach to attain equilibrium and her lack of commitment within the precious six months of X 's life, bring us to ask for an additional placement period of five months which is not allow the mother to regain control of her life but to offer X a family so that she may use the time to be involved rather than to wait. » [ 49 ] The applicant informed the Court that the child will soon be placed in a long-term foster family.

In April the applicant will present to the Court a permanent life project for the child. [ 50 ] At the June 4, 2014 Court hearing the mother was absent. [ 51 ] However the Court served the mother a clear warning [3] : [12] It is quite clear that the mother cannot presently care for her daughter. Considering the mother’s personal history and that nothing was done during the pregnancy to stay sober, the mother has little time to put herself into action. Her intentions must lead to tangible actions and results.

By that the Court means that the mother needs to undergo a serious treatment program, follow in a valid aftercare plan and do the necessary to develop her parental skills. [ 52 ] In September the mother completed successfully a treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. Her contacts with her daughter were regular for a period of three weeks. [ 53 ] The evidence is preponderant that the mother struggles with a lot of personal issues and that her life is still characterized by instability. [ 54 ] The evidence is preponderant that the mother cannot take care of her daughter.

Besides the mother encounters major difficulties even to take care of herself. [ 55 ] However for the first time in her life she put herself into action and completed a treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. However this measure does not settle all the other mother's issues.

[ 56 ] Since the mother completed that treatment she started to visit her child more regularly. [ 57 ] The maximum delay set in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act will end in April 2015. The Court will have to « make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis [4] . [ 58 ] The Court concludes that it is in the child's best interest to have regular contacts with her mother.

However the mother will have to act responsibly and to respect strictly the visits' schedule. [ 59 ] Those contacts will be the following: • The contacts between the mother and the child will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and in the presence of someone designated by him; • The mother will minimally visit her child once a week for a period of two hours; • If the mother visits her child once a week for two hours eight weeks in a row, then she could have a three hours visit once a week if the child's situation allows it; • For each visit the mother will have to provide the child with the necessary things she needs like diapers; • For each visit the mother will have to be ready and on time.

If not, the Director of Youth Protection can cancel the visit; • If the mother intends to cancel a visit she will have to call in advance (minimum 24 hours) or notify in an other manner the Director of Youth Protection. If not, the Director of Youth Protection can cancel the visit. [ 60 ] Considering the evidence as a whole the Court concludes that the security or development of the child is still endangered pursuant to the law.

For these reasons the Court: [ 61 ] Grants partially the motion; [ 62 ] Maintains that the security or development of X , born on [...] , 2014 is still compromised pursuant to the law; [ 63 ] Orders the following measures for a period of five months; [ 64 ] Orders that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 65 ] Takes judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection will place the child in long-term foster family; [ 66 ] Orders that the mother-child access rights be the following: • Orders that the mother-child contacts be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and in the presence of someone designated by him; • The mother will minimally visit her child once a week for a period of two hours; • If the mother visits her child once a week for two hours eight weeks in a row, then she could have a three hours visit once a week if the child's situation allows it; • Orders the mother to provide the child with the necessary things she needs when she visits her daughter; • Orders the mother to be ready and on time for each visit.

If not the Director of Youth Protection can cancel the visit; • Orders the mother to call the Director of Youth Protection in advance (24 hours) or to notify him in an other manner if she intends to cancel a visit. If not, the Director of Youth Protection can cancel the visit. [ 67 ] Orders that the mother be sober when in presence of the child; [ 68 ] Orders the mother to play an active

part in the present measures; [ 69 ] Orders the mother to submit to random drug screening tests upon request from the Director of Youth Protection; [ 70 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the mother, child as well as the foster parents; [ 71 ] Withdraws from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding medical care and authorizations as well as health services and grants the exercise of the said attributes to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 72 ] Orders that the child receives health care services required by her situation; [ 73 ] Takes judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection will present at the end of the present measures a life plan project for the child; [ 74 ] Orders the Director of Youth Protection to file in this Court file the child's birth certificate as soon as possible;

[ 75 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 76 ] Entrusts the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q. Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the child Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 26, 2014