2019 QCCQ 11855, 2019 QCCQ 11855

Protection de la jeunesse — 192296 2019 QCCQ 11855 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005194-165 DATE: March 13, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2015 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection applies for the revision and extension of measures in place concerning the child X in reason of neglect.

In virtue of the last order, X resides with her maternal aunt, Ms. B with supervised access to her mother. [ 2 ] Alleging that this environment can no longer meet the needs of the child, the Director seeks her transfer to the home of another family member who is currently assuming the care of her brother, Y, while pursuing the other protective measures already in place for one year. [ 3 ] The mother and the child’s attorney, acting under a legal mandate, subscribe to the Director’s evaluation and proposed orientation.

The maternal aunt, having been granted intervenor status, also agrees to the conclusions sought. [ 4 ] Context [ 5 ] The Director is active in the child’s life since 2016, in relation to numerous elements of ongoing instability in her mother’s personal situation. Such is the case in regards to Mr. C, her biological father. [ 6 ] The situation of endangerment remains largely unchanged since that time. Although the mother wants to be more implicated with her children, she is still struggling with her various personal issues. Mr. C is inconsistent as to his contacts with X and is little available for the follow-up.

In point of fact, since November 2018, he is completely disinvested. [ 7 ] X resides under the care of her maternal aunt. Her brother Z joins her as of his infancy (July 2017). The mother’s three children are in alternate family environments. Her son Y resides with his maternal great uncle. [ 8 ] X is awaiting an evaluation in reason of developmental delays (speech and motor). [ 9 ] X attends daycare, as does her younger brother. The daycare observes repeated and sustained elements of neglect, which are not addressed properly, despite interventions on their part (health, basic needs, clothing and hygiene).

Similar issues are observed by the caseworkers. [ 10 ] The maternal aunt mostly refuses services or accompaniment, stating that she doesn’t see any need for such. [ 11 ] Although the maternal aunt is devoted to the children, ongoing issues as to her parental capacities are the subject of concern and interventions by the Director. More specifically, the evidence shows the following:

• In the last 18 months, the family has moved 5 times; • The maternal aunt has missed important appointments with the psycho educator in relation to the child’s development; • The children’s basis needs go regularly unanswered (hygiene, clothing, affection, health) and this, despite reminders; • The physical premises are often unsanitary and neglected; • Supervision and structure are inconsistent in the family environment; • Despite services being put in place, little durable change is observed; [ 12 ] The maternal aunt struggles with the care of four young children.

This results in a general disorganization which resounds on X. It cannot be discounted that her developmental delays stem, at least in part, from the deficient care she receives in her alternate environment. [ 13 ] For some time, the conditions are in place justifying that X be stabilized on a long term basis, but this process has been suspended with the expectations that her alternate family milieu make the necessary changes to ensure her needs. The evidence now demonstrates that such is no longer a viable solution for X. As such, the parties agree that a new plan needs to be put in place. [ 14 ] Mr.

D, X’s maternal great uncle, has been caring for her brother Y. Concurrent to the present proceeding, the Court orders that Y be entrusted to him on a permanent basis. Mr. D is willing to have X join the family. As do the parties, the Court evaluates that such is X’s best interests. [ 15 ] In reason of the change in orientation, the Director requests that the Court revoke the maternal aunt’s intervenor status in the file. While underlining the significant bond between X and her maternal aunt, such is not sufficient to maintain her status in the Court proceedings.

Following the terms of the present judgment, it is necessary to conclude that the conditions justifying her intervention no longer exist. As such, the Court grants this additional conclusion. [ 16 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 19 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on May 17, 2018; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr.

D; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision of the contacts between the child and her mother following agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director, and in the absence of agreement that they take place after three consecutive meetings with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and Mrs. B be following agreement between the parties; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother reports to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or on the child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 28 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 30 ] REVOKES Mrs. B’s status as an intervening party. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Pascale Boucher Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother

Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the intervening party Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 11 (intervention) and March 13, 2019