2013 QCCQ 14459, 2013 QCCQ 14459

Protection de la jeunesse — 135071 2013 QCCQ 14459 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NO: 640-41-001484-127 DATE: September 16, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth protection of the A of Health and Social Services A PETITIONER AND X Born on [...], 2007 CHILD AND A MOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks for the extension of a previous court decision rendered on August 23, 2012 ordering the placement of X in a foster family for a period of one year. [ 2 ] M e Michel Grenier represents the mother and M e Daniel Ouellette represents the child.

M e Camille Provencher acts on behalf of the petitioner. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking an additional 6 months of placement for the child. Neither the mother nor the child's counsel challenge the motion. [ 4 ] The mother stated that her relationship with Mr. B has ended a month ago. For the last three weeks, he hasn't exercised access rights to the two children they have together. She will not allow him to visit them at her residence. [ 5 ] Over the last year, she has never discussed X 's situation with him even less confronted him.

When this subject was raised by the Social Worker, the mother kept saying that it was the Social Worker's responsibility to talk to him. [ 6 ] To this day, the mother has never clearly expressed her position regarding the facts revealed by her daughter in March 2012. Does she believe that X was sexually molested by Mr.

B or not? [ 7 ] The mother's collaboration to the social follow-up has been lukewarm until the last month. [ 8 ] Because of her lack of collaboration, the mother has never been assessed by a psychologist as ordered even though she had consented to such an assessment at the hearing in August 2012. [ 9 ] The child was entrusted to other people in March 2012 and was later placed in a foster family. [ 10 ] The time limit for the placement of a child of this age is of 18 months as prescribed by

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 11 ] Today, the petitioner asks the Court to place the child for a period of six months, going beyond the time limit set by the law. [ 12 ] The recent improvement of the mother's collaboration, her consent to meet with a psychologist in City A at the end of August, her break-up with Mr. B , are all new factors that underlie this recommendation. [ 13 ] At the present stage, the Court cannot conclude that a reintegration of X with her mother is not possible or foreseeable in a short-term period. To achieve this goal, the mother has to fully collaborate with the Social Worker, to honestly report any significant

facts that can have an impact on X or the reintegration of the child. She will also have to be regular in the exercise of her access rights with X . [ 14 ] This file is at a turning point. The next months will be decisive: either the mother undertakes all necessary steps to resolve the situation or a long-term placement will be contemplated by the Court. [ 15 ] A reintegration is possible as long as the mother does not resume her relationship with her former spouse, Mr. B . [ 16 ] Access rights must be encouraged if and only if the child is not put in presence of Mr.

B . [ 17 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 20 ] EXTENDS the placement of the child in a foster family until January 31, 2014 with a reintegration with the mother if the situation allows to do so in accordance with

section 62 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and her mother for the same period; [ 22 ] ORDERS that access rights between the child and her mother be encouraged and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities; [ 23 ] Prohibits the mother from putting the child in contact with Mr.

B ; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the Social Worker to make unannounced visits to the mother's residence; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and its representatives; [ 26 ] ORDERS the mother to report to the Social Worker at least twice a month on the measures she applies to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of X ; [ 27 ] ORDERS the mother, as she gave her consent, to collaborate with a psychological assessment and follow the recommendations of the professional; [ 28 ] ORDERS that X receive all health and social services required, especially a psychological follow-up if deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS X 's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Provencher Lawyer for the child M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child M e Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: August 21, 2013