2013 QCCQ 9175, 2013 QCCQ 9175

Protection de la jeunesse — 132349 2013 QCCQ 9175 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 640-41-001531-125 DATE: April 29, 2013 _____________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in City A Applicant and X, born on […], 2006 Child and A Mother and B Father _____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT _____________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant addressed the Court, asking that the security and development of X, born on […], 2006, be declared in danger. [ 2 ] At the hearing, X was represented by an attorney, whereas his parents, who were both present, were not assisted by an attorney. [ 3 ] While the father agreed with the conclusion in the motion and the proposed measures, the mother vehemently disagreed with them. [ 4 ] From the admissions made at the hearing, the evidence heard and the documents filed, the Court noted the following. [ 5 ] X is a young boy, now seven years old, who has been living in the foster home of his paternal uncle and aunt since July 2012. [ 6 ] A brief review of the background to this case shows that the parents are separated and that the mother had been the main caregiver of the child since his birth. [ 7 ] As for the father, he is not overly present in his son’s life. [ 8 ] The youth protection authorities began to receive reports in September 2008, when the child’s brother was behaving violently toward him. [ 9 ] On numerous subsequent occasions, similar reports were received; X was even injured by some of the behaviour. [ 10 ] As the mother was not entirely consistent in the care and protection of her son at that time, the youth protection authorities continued to be involved until July 14, 2012, when the mother herself informed them that, in her opinion, her home was not safe for the child, given his brother’s violent behaviour. [ 11 ] Thus began his placement with a foster family, which continues today.

We should point out that the placement was the outcome of voluntarily accepted measures. [ 12 ] Since then, the mother seems to have been particularly ambivalent about her intentions concerning her child. [ 13 ] According to the evidence presented by the applicant, the mother has had infrequent and irregular contact with X.

[ 14 ] Moreover, it is very difficult to involve the mother in steps aimed at correcting the situation, as she cooperates little. [ 15 ] The outcome is that the applicant can barely describe the mother’s situation, particularly with respect to certain problems with alcohol use that she seems to have experienced in the past. [ 16 ] For her part, Ms.

A testified and explained for the most part that she refuses to cooperate with the youth protection authorities until they assign a representative of A origin who is familiar with and able to understand her language and cultural environment. [ 17 ] As the mother is entrenched in this position and expresses primarily bitterness toward the youth protection authorities and her former spouse, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain concrete information about her situation or the solutions she advocates. [ 18 ] She claims, among other things, that she was forced to accept the voluntary measures agreed on in July 2012. [ 19 ] When questions are put to her, she regularly responds with more questions, so that it is extremely laborious to examine the real issues with her. [ 20 ] As for the father, although he has not been overly present in his son’s life, he is currently attempting to change that situation, and has regular contact with him.

That is facilitated by the fact that X lives with his sister. [ 21 ] He acknowledges that there is a situation of endangerment, that he cannot currently consider taking care of his son and that he finds the proposed placement to be the solution for the time being. [ 22 ] Considering the evidence presented before the Court, it is difficult to conclude that the child should be returned to his mother, as she clearly seems unable to ensure his security and refuses to cooperate with the youth protection authorities. [ 23 ] As for the father, by his own admission, he is also not in a position to take care of X. [ 24 ] The solution is thus to maintain the placement that began in July 2012, while remaining open to a return to one parent or the other, if the situation allows. [ 25 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 27 ] ORDERS that X, born on […], 2006, be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months, with a return to one or the other parent, if the situation allows; [ 28 ] ORDERS that both parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that all contact between the child and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequency and conditions; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 31 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Counsel for the applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A. Counsel for the child Date of hearing: March 12, 2013