2017 QCCQ 1057, 2017 QCCQ 1057

Protection de la jeunesse — 17247 2017 QCCQ 1057 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N° : 550-41-002031-159 DATE : 11 janvier 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LA DIRECTRICE DE LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE Demanderesse et X Enfant et A En qualité de mère ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT (Art. 95 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ) ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents.

Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J.). [ 1 ] Considérant la sécurité et le développement de l’enfant toujours compromis, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse demande au Tribunal de réviser et de prolonger la décision rendue le 30 août 2016. [ 2 ] À cette date, la juge soussignée confiait l’enfant à sa grand-mère maternelle pour une période de trois mois et ordonnait une réintégration progressive auprès de sa mère.

La durée du suivi social était de douze mois. [ 3 ] La Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse recommande maintenant de maintenir l’enfant chez sa grand-mère maternelle pendant neuf mois, tout en la réintégrant progressivement auprès de sa mère. Elle suggère un suivi social de douze mois. [ 4 ] La mère assiste à l’audience; elle admet que la sécurité et que le développement de sa fille sont toujours compromis et elle consent aux mesures suggérées.

Le procureur de l’enfant, qui a un mandat légal, ne s’oppose pas à la demande. [ 5 ] De consentement, la procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse dépose le rapport de l'intervenante afin de valoir témoignage. [ 6 ] Il ressort de la preuve que la mère, qui est bipolaire, a aussi eu, dans les derniers mois, des symptômes de dépression. Comme elle ne se sentait pas bien, elle a obtenu un congé maladie, en novembre 2016, et s’est absentée de son travail.

Depuis janvier, elle y retourne progressivement, ce qui est pour elle une source d’anxiété. [ 7 ] Elle n’a pu, non plus, durant la précédente mesure, acquérir tout ce dont elle avait besoin pour prendre soin de sa fille. [ 8 ] La Directrice suggère d’augmenter, durant les prochains mois, l’intensité des services offerts à la mère, afin d’évaluer soigneusement sa capacité, tant sur le plan physique que psychologique, de répondre aux besoins de sa fille. [ 9 ] Aussi la mère consent-elle à ce que, durant les trois prochains mois, ses visites avec sa fille soient supervisées.

Cela permettra à l’intervenante d’évaluer la qualité des contacts entre l’enfant et la mère, ainsi que les capacités parentales de cette dernière. [ 10 ] Ainsi que le précise l’intervenante : those 3 visits a week would help us to see if Mrs A is able to receive her daugther at home, organize her home environment consequently, respect a schedule, put a routine in place, budget in order to be able to have food for snacks and meals, plan age- appropriate activities, be able to reassure X, be able to interact with X and take pleasure in the interactions, intervene in a way that would permit to establish a secure bond. [ 11 ] La supervision permettra de plus à l’intervenante de soutenir la mère en lui donnant des conseils précis.

[ 12 ] Bref, l’objectif est de vérifier si, en offrant un cadre plus structuré à la mère, celle-ci est capable et disposée à prendre les moyens pour pouvoir éventuellement offrir un milieu de vie stable à sa fille. Si tel n’est pas le cas, il faudra conclure que le retour de l’enfant dans son milieu maternel n’est pas dans son intérêt. [ 13 ] Par ailleurs, l’enfant, on le sait, est confiée à sa grand-mère maternelle depuis déjà 16 mois. Elle ne peut attendre encore sa mère très longtemps.

Cette dernière doit donc saisir la chance qui lui est offerte, accepter le soutien de l’intervenante et faire le maximum d’efforts pour reprendre charge de sa fille. Par ailleurs, si cela est au-dessus de ses forces, elle devra accepter que l’enfant ait un autre projet de vie. [ 14 ] Il faut enfin ajouter que la grand-mère maternelle n’a pu être accréditée comme famille d’accueil de proximité.

Elle ne respectait pas toutes les conditions nécessaires à l’obtention de ce « statut » : l’enfant partageait alors le lit de sa grand-mère; il n’y avait pas de table dans la cuisine et la fillette mangeait sur un divan; enfin la grand-mère ne favorisait pas suffisamment la socialisation de sa petite-fille. [ 15 ] Cependant, depuis cette évaluation, la grand-mère a accepté de corriger certaines lacunes : l’enfant a maintenant un lit et mange sur une table.

Il est donc vraisemblable qu’elle soit éventuellement reconnue comme famille d’accueil de proximité. [ 16 ] Puisqu’il est en principe dans l’intérêt de l’enfant de retourner sous les soins de ses parents et comme la mère, de façon générale, collabore bien à l’intervention sociale, le Tribunal accepte de réviser la dernière décision afin de permettre à la Directrice d’intensifier les services offerts à la mère, de vérifier la capacité de cette dernière à reprendre charge de sa fille.

Si cette dernière tentative échoue, il faudra cependant conclure qu’il n’est pas dans l’intérêt de X de retourner auprès de sa mère. [ 17 ] Dans les circonstances, le Tribunal n'a aucune hésitation à déclarer la sécurité et le développement de l'enfant toujours compromis et à faire droit aux mesures de protection suggérées, qui, selon la preuve, sont appropriées à ses besoins. [ 18 ] La demande est fondée; elle est dans l'intérêt de l'enfant et respecte ses droits. [ 19 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 20 ] ALLOWS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the child’s security and development are still in danger; [ 22 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on August 30, 2016; [ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of the following protective measures:

a) That the child stay entrusted under the care of Mrs. B, maternal grand-mother, for a period of nine months and TAKES ACT that Mrs. B will be evaluated to become a foster family and if the evaluation is positive, the child will be entrusted to that foster family;

b) That a person working for an institution or body of CISSS[A]/CJ[A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year;

c) That contacts between the child and her mother be supervised (three times a week, at the mother’s home) for a period of three months and that supervision be according to an agreement between all parties afterwards;

d) That the mother participate actively with the elaboration and application of the intervention plan; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS :

a) That the child receive the care and services required by her state (daycare, medical follow-up);

b) That the mother receive required services by her state (mental health, drug use, parental abilities) and follow the recommendations; [ 25 ] TAKES ACT:

a) That a progressive reintegration will be held during the nine-month period, if the situation allows it; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this decision. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q. M e Ariane Beaulieu Procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse M e Daniel Lessard Procureur de l'enfant Madame A Mère - personnellement

Date d’audience : 11 janvier 2017 Protection de la jeunesse — 17247 2017 QCCQ 1057 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 550-41-002031-159 DATE: January 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X Child and A In her capacity as mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2., 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [1] The Director of Youth Protection, considering the security and development of the child to still be in danger, is asking the Court to review and extend the decision rendered on August 30, 2016. [2] On that date, I entrusted the child to her maternal grandmother for three months and ordered that she be gradually reintegrated with her mother, with social follow-up for twelve months. [3] The Director of Youth Protection now recommends that the child remain with her maternal grandmother for nine months and that she be gradually reintegrated with her mother.

She suggests a twelve-month social follow-up. [4] The mother attended the hearing. She admitted that the security and development of her daughter were still in danger and agreed to the measures sought. The child’s lawyer, who had a legal mandate, did not oppose the request. [5] With consent, the lawyer for the Director of Youth Protection filed the caseworker’s report to serve as testimony. [6] The evidence shows that the mother, who is bipolar, also experienced symptoms of depression in the last months. Given that she was not feeling well, she was granted sick leave in November 2016 and was absent from work.

In January, she began a gradual return to work, which is a source of anxiety for her. [7] Nor was she able, during the term of the previous measure, to acquire everything she needed to care for her daughter. [8] The Director suggested that the level of services being offered to the mother be increased in the coming months in order to carefully assess her capacity, from both a physical and a psychological standpoint, to meet her daughter’s needs. [9] The mother also agreed that visits with her daughter be supervised for the next three months.

This will make it possible for the caseworker to assess the quality of the mother’s contact with her daughter as well her parental capacities. [10] As indicated by the caseworker:

those 3 visits a week would help us to see if Mrs A is able to receive her daugther at home, organize her home environment consequently, respect a schedule, put a routine in place, budget in order to be able to have food for snacks and meals, plan age- appropriate activities, be able to reassure X, be able to interact with X and take pleasure in the interactions, intervene in a way that would permit to establish a secure bond. [ sic ] [11] Supervision will also allow the caseworker to support the mother with advice in specific areas. [12] In brief, the objective is to verify if, by offering the mother a more structured framework, she is able and willing to take steps to eventually provide her daughter with a stable living environment.

If such is not the case, it would have to be concluded that returning X to the maternal environment is not in the child’s interest. [13] Moreover, as we know, the child has been entrusted to her maternal grandmother for 16 months already. She cannot wait on her mother much longer. The mother must therefore seize the opportunity that she is being given, accept the support provided by the caseworker and do everything she can to take back charge of her daughter.

Should this prove to be beyond her capabilities, she must accept that the child will have another life plan. [14] Lastly, it must be added that the maternal grandmother could not be accredited as a kinship foster family. She did not meet all the conditions required to obtain this “status”: the child was sharing her grandmother’s bed; there was no kitchen table and the child was eating on a sofa.

Finally, the grandmother was not sufficiently favouring her granddaughter’s socialization. [15] Since that evaluation, however, the grandmother has accepted to correct certain shortcomings: the child now has a bed and eats at a table.

It is therefore likely that the grandmother will eventually be recognized as a kinship foster family. [16] Since, in principle, it is in the child’s interest to return under the care of her parents, and since the mother, generally speaking, is cooperating well in the social intervention, the Court agrees to revise the previous decision in order to allow the Director to increase the services offered to the mother and assess her ability to take back charge of her daughter.

However, if this final attempt fails, it must be concluded that it is not in X’s interest to return to her mother. [17] In the circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in declaring that the child’s security and development are still in danger and in allowing the recommended protective measures, which, according to the evidence, are suited to the child’s needs. [18] The motion is founded; it is in the child’s interest and in keeping with her rights. [19] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [20] ALLOWS the motion; [21] DECLARES that the child’s security and development are still in danger; [22] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on August 30, 2016; [23] ORDERS the execution of the following protective measures:

e) That the child stay entrusted under the care of Mrs. B, maternal grand-mother, for a period of nine months and TAKES ACT that Mrs. B will be evaluated to become a foster family and if the evaluation is positive, the child will be entrusted to that foster family;

f) That a person working for an institution or body of CISSS[A]/CJ[A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year;

g) That contacts between the child and her mother be supervised (three times a week, at the mother’s home) for a period of three months and that supervision be according to an agreement between all parties afterwards;

h) That the mother participate actively with the elaboration and application of the intervention plan; [24] RECOMMENDS :

c) That the child receive the care and services required by her state (daycare, medical follow-up);

d) That the mother receive required services by her state (mental health, drug use, parental abilities) and follow the recommendations; [25] TAKES ACT:

b) That a progressive reintegration will be held during the nine-month period, if the situation allows it; [26] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this decision. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. Mtre. Ariane Beaulieu

Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Daniel Lessard Counsel for the child A Mother – Representing herself Hearing date: January 11, 2017