2016 QCCQ 8634, 2016 QCCQ 8634

Adoption — 16118 2016 QCCQ 8634 JB4404 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Protection »

N°: 455-43-000183-158 455-43-000184-156 DATE: February 12 th , 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE: JULIE BEAUCHESNE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF THE CHILDREN: X , Born on [...], 2006 -and- Y , Born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A , practicing her profession at [...] , in the city A (Québec) Applicant -and- A , domiciled and residing at […], in City B (Québec, -and- B , domiciled and residing at […], City C (Québec); Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The judicial files respecting the adoption of a chid are confidential and no information that would allow the identification of the child, his parents, his tutor or the adopters may be published or broadcast, except as required by law (sections 815.4 C.C.P. and 582 C.C.Q.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized with an application of declaration of eligibility for adoption in the situation of the children X and Y . [ 2 ] In support with its motion, the Director files for evidence the testimonies, with the parties’ consent, several documents (exhibits D-1 to D-11) and the children’s record as constituted in accordance with the Youth Protection Law. [ 3 ] To complete the Director’s evidence, [Social Worker 1] , social worker, testified before the Court. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the mother is absent even though she received a letter on November 11 th , 2015.

As for the father, he is present but not represented. [ 5 ] When the time comes to determine if a child can be declared admissible for adoption, the Court must proceed to an analysis in three steps. [ 6 ] Regarding this aspect, the Court must circumscribe its evaluation to the six months prior to the notification of the motion.

[ 7 ] At the hearing of November 25 th , 2015, the father testified and argued that some aspects of the past reports were erroneous. [ 8 ] Even if he did not see his children for many years now, he pretends that it is possible to come back in their life and to get back their responsibilities. [ 9 ] According to him, if a father is willing to get his children back, the Court should, at any moment even to the adoption stage, permit him to be involved in his children’s life. [ 10 ] He ignores the previous orders and abstracts his non-involvement with his children in recent years. [ 11 ] He blames the foster family concerning some issues in regard of contacts between him and his children.

He also complains that the services offered to the mother should have been offered to him. Step 1: Did, in fact, the parents take in hand the care, maintenance and education of their children during the six months prior to the notification of the present motion (Art. 559.2 C.c.Q ) ? [ 12 ] The protective judicial file of the children constitutes a source of privileged, reliable, explicit information which were not contradicted in the present file. [ 13 ] The Quebec Court of Appeal in the situation of G. (M.-C.) c.

G. (N.) [1] : “L’audition d’une déclaration d’admissibilité à l’adoption n’est pas une occasion de remettre en cause le bien-fondé d’un jugement de protection des enfants, non porté en appel et ayant acquis autorité de la chose jugée. “ [ 14 ] The Court read the whole protective judicial file of the children and noted that the Director intervened in the children’s situation within protective measures. [ 15 ] In June 2007, the Director received a complaint regarding psychological ill-treatment, neglect of health and educational neglect and is involved with the family since then. [ 16 ] In September 2007, the mother had as psychological evaluation and it appears that she has important cognitive limits which reduce her parental capacities.

Despites several services (social worker, family auxiliary, nurse, psychoeducator, daycare), the mother is overwhelmed. [ 17 ] On November 30 th , 207, Justice Denis declared that the security and the development of the children were in danger. The children were entrusted to foster families and supervised contacts between the parents and the children were authorized by the Court. [ 18 ] Several motions for extension were submitted to the Court and were all granted.

The last order dated July 30 th , 2014 entrusted the children to foster family until their majority. [ 19 ] The mother is still living with her spouse Mr.

C . [ 20 ] As for her implication towards the Director, she did not present herself to any services concerning her children. [ 21 ] All attempts (4 registered letters) to reach her were unsuccessful and her last visit with the twin was in September 2013. [ 22 ] In regards to the father, since July 2014, he did not ask any question concerning the well being if his children, did not get involved in any services, did not participate financially to the children’s placement and did not ask for any visit. [ 23 ] His last contact with the twin was in summer 2010. [ 24 ] After reviewing the file, the Court wishes to emphasize that Justice Gagnon was seized with a first application of eligibility for adoption and rendered a decision on December 12 th , 2011 in which she dismissed the application because the mother was involved in her children’s life mentioning: “[148] And the mother never flags.

She doesn’t give up. For four years, she has been making a stable contribution to her twins’ welfare. She does her utmost, given her limitations and the intervention plan established by the Director.” [149] In short, the mother makes concrete, sustained gestures directed toward her children’s needs, “in a sincere spirit of affection and tenderness”, which are “the expression of her interest in her children”.

This clearly goes beyond the “theoretical” or “minimal attention”. “[150] (…) the Court concludes that the mother, by her numerous, interrupted, concrete gesture of benevolence, has taken her responsibilities – in an unconventional manner, yes, but has taken them nonetheless.” [ 25 ] It was also very clear in her decision that the father was already absent his children’s life stating: “[113] The Court believes that the father’s position since May 20 th , 2010, when he chooses to vanish again from his twin’s life with no concern whatsoever for what he was doing to them, confirms that his past actions met his own needs more than those of his children.

This attitude has lasted throughout their placement, including the six months prior to service of application. And this attitude still persists. [114] Consequently, the Court concludes that the father has not, in fact, taken in hand the care, maintenance and education of his

children.” [ 26 ] Since this order, the mother withdrawn from her children’s life. [ 27 ] The evidence shown to the Court today is very different than the one presented in October 2011. [ 28 ] For these reasons, Court draws the inference, that today, both parents have given up playing any parental role with their children. [ 29 ] The Court, having reviewing the exhibits, the judicial file, concludes that the parents did not assume the care, the maintenance nor the education for X and Y during the six months prior to the notification of the present motion since they were not able to actualize their parental capacities and did not initiate any steps to resolve their problems.

Step 2: If, in fact, the parents did not take in hand their children’s care, maintenance and education, the Court must ask itself if it is not unlikely that they could regain custody of their children, this unlikelihood being presumed ( Art. 561 C.c.Q. ); [ 30 ] At this stage, the parents have the burden of rebutting the presumption of improbability that they can regain and assume the care, the maintenance and the education of their children. [ 31 ] The evidence revealed that the parents did not present any resumption project for the children. [ 32 ] In fact, neither parents has participated actively in the intervention plan aimed at helping them accompanied their children in their life plan.

They did not make take any action to resolve their problems in order to recover their children. [ 33 ] Nothing in the reports shows that the parents want to remain involved with their children’s life, except the father’s testimony. [ 34 ] As for the twin, they have settled elsewhere since their entrustment in November July 2011.

Indeed, they were both entrusted to their foster family since they were 17 months old and have integrated well with them. [ 35 ] Their biological parents have become strangers to them. [ 36 ] Even with the strongest viable project, the Court questions itself on the capability of the children to accept their parents again at this stage. [ 37 ] The Court concludes that there is no possibility that the parents could take responsibility of X or Y .

Step 3: Finally, the Court must consider if the declaration of eligibility for adoption is in the interest of these children ( Art. 543 C.c.Q. ). [ 38 ] X was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, light intellectual deficiency, expressive and receptive language difficulties. As for Y , he has a light intellectual deficiency. [ 39 ] Those issues require a lot of attention, evaluation and services which the foster family is providing to the children.

The foster parents’ investment in the stimulation, attention and affection towards the children give them a chance to develop their potential, in an environment that supports and encourages them. [ 40 ] They have bonded with their caregiver who they consider their actual parents. [ 41 ] Both children do not make any reference to their parents nor request any contact. [ 42 ] The Court notices that they have built a quality bond with their foster family and that it is in their best interest to be in that environment for their development and special needs. [ 43 ] They progress well in their foster family, they are developing well and the foster family clearly expresses its desire to adopt the twin. [ 44 ] The Court believes that it is in the interest of the twin, to stay in the family they well know and who brings positive responses to all their needs. [ 45 ] The Court reminds to the parties that the present order is not rendered against any party but only in the best interest of the children. [ 46 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 47 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 48 ] DECLARES the children X and Y , both borned on [...] , 2006 judicially eligible for adoption; [ 49 ] DESIGNATES the Director of the Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A to exercise parental authority in regard to the children X and Y .

__________________________________ JULIE BEAUCHESNE, J.C.Q. M e Lise Barbusci, DYP Counsel M e Danielle Dontigny, counsel of the children Hearing date: November 25 th , 2015