r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 12650

Protection de la jeunesse — 165514 2016 QCCQ 12650 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004928-159 DATE: July 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2015 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Context [ 2 ] On October 29, 2015, the Court declares that the security and the development of the child X are in danger in reason of a serious risk of neglect.

As well as ordering other protective measures for a period of 9 months, the Court entrusts the child to foster care and provides supervised contacts with his mother. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for the revision and extension of the said order, alleging essentially that the mother ceases all effective involvement as to her son.

Considering the delays of placement, the Director declares the elaboration of a permanency plan (adoption) and seeks the extension of their involvement for 9 months in order to complete this process. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in the absence of the mother, who receives service of the motion and further advises the caseworker of her intention to not be present. [ 5 ] The attorney for the child operates under a legal mandate.

After evaluating the evidence, she states being in agreement with the orientation put forth by the Director. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] X resides in foster care since he is two days old in reason of a serious risk of neglect stemming from the mother’s history of instability, which remains ongoing notwithstanding the involvement of social services. As of September 2015, he resides with a foster family able to receive him on a permanent basis. [ 8 ] X has a positive bond with his foster family.

He functions well and is developing normally. [ 9 ] The contacts between X and his mother are initially scheduled once a week for 2 hours, the mother agreeing to confirm her presence at least 24 hours in advance. Notwithstanding, there is only one contact between X and his mother since the last order, namely on November 19, 2015. The mother doesn’t confirm visitation after this date. [ 10 ] The mother misses all her child’s medical appointments, although being advised of such and being offered assistance as to her transportation needs.

She only contacts the foster family on one occasion to receive an update of her son (November), despite being encouraged to do so.

[ 11 ] As of the last contact, the mother ceases all cooperation or involvement with social services. The Director’s attempts to communicate or meet with her are largely to no avail. [ 12 ] Obtaining the mother's authorization for a medical intervention for X is a long and arduous process, considering her residential instability and her failure to return messages. [ 13 ] From the information available, the mother’s personal situation remains largely unchanged and still denotes a global instability. Although she makes a request to receive services in regards to her mental health, she does not follow-through.

As of the present, no services are in place. [ 14 ] The Director goes forth with the elaboration of a permanency plan, namely an adoption. Legal proceedings are pending. [ 15 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and the development of the child continues to be in danger and that it is appropriate that he continue to benefit from the application of protective measures, ensuring the status quo of his situation.

As such, the Director’s orientation reflects the child’s best interests. [ 16 ] Furthermore, the Court calculates the imminent expiration of the maximum delays of placement provided within the Youth Protection Act .

Although it is conceivable that the mother's situation evolve, the evidence, in conjunction with the period of placement to date, justify that the Director move forward with the permanency plan determined, and the undersigned takes act of this intention as also corresponding to the child’s best interests. [ 17 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 20 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on October 29, 2015; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 23 ] TAKES ACT that before the establishment of contacts, the Director will require previous meetings with the mother in order to confirm her personal situation as well as her intentions as to an involvement with her child; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically, every two weeks, to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her child's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 27 ] RECOMMANDS that the mother receives services for her mental health; [ 28 ] TAKES ACT that the Director is going forward in a permanency plan establish for the child, namely adoption proceedings; [ 29 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 9 months; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 5, 2016