2013 QCCQ 11318, 2013 QCCQ 11318

Protection de la jeunesse — 132193 2013 QCCQ 11318 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-023662-109 DATE: May 21, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on [...], 2010 - and - A Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 21, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered September 24, 2012, entrusting the child to the care of Ms.

B until May 1, 2013 with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child is thriving in Ms.B ’s care, more particularly but not restrictively in that the child is healthy, happy and well adjusted • The child continues to attend daycare regularly and the feedback from the daycare is positive, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . there are no concerns regarding the child’s development; . Ms. B is the person who mostly brings the child to the daycare, and although her son Mr.

C also comes on occasion, the child’s primary attachment is seen to be with Ms. B; • Ms. B and Mr. C have made some changes in the home, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . Mr. C has moved down to the basement; . the child has his own room; • In February 2013, the […] Youth Centre agreed to do a social follow-up, but a worker has not yet been appointed; • Although, consistent social intervention is provided and the unusual dynamics were and still are addressed by the delegate, Ms. B has been reluctant to start therapy, and some aspects of the family dynamics have yet to change; • Ms.

B will begin seeing a psychologist at the CLSC on May 15, 2013, and the delegate will continue to support this process;

• The child is very strongly attached to Ms. B, and he is also attached to Mr. C, as they are the family he has known since birth; • The mother’s whereabouts remain unknown and she has not contacted the Director of Youth Protection or Ms. B; • The Director of Youth Protection feels that it is in the child’s best interest to remain entrusted to Ms.

B, while continuing to work on the family dynamics; • The Director of Youth Protection does not intend to pursue adoption or tutorship plans at this point, but rather an entrustment plan with continued social services. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to Ms. B’s care until his age of majority and that the contacts between the child and his mother be prohibited. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained until the child’s age of majority. [ 5 ] The mother was not present at the hearing and her whereabouts are unknown.

The mother does not participate in the social follow- up and has no contact with the child. Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in X’s best interest. [ 7 ] The Court heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], social worker, and read the report the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. Ms. [Social Worker 1] affirms that X is doing very well in Ms. B’s care. The concerns mentioned in the adoption report were addressed and Ms. B has been very cooperative. Mr.

C, Ms. B’s son, has taken his own apartment, but is still involve in X's life. The child attends daycare and is meeting all his milestones. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. B who states that she is committed to caring for X on a long term basis. Ms. B says that she now calls the child X and that he is getting used to his name. She no longer refers to her son as the father of X, but rather as “X”. The same applies at the daycare where Mr. C is referred to as “X” and not as X's father. Ms. B also states that she met with a psychologist at the CLSC.

The psychologist was given a copy of the adoption report and he did not recommend a psychological follow-up. [ 9 ] The evidence presented reveals that the mother has abandoned her son and that a permanent plan must be established for the child. X has been living with Ms. B since he was five weeks old and is attached to her. The concerns of the adoption report have been addressed and positive changes have been made. The child now has his own bedroom and his toys. Furthermore, Mr.

C is no longer living in the home and the child does not address him as “papa”. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to the care of Ms. B until his age of majority.

DYP’s involvement remains necessary in order to ensure that the child’s needs are met and that his family history is explained to him. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admission made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child; [ 15 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on September 24, 2012, and orders the following final measures: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of Ms.

B until his age of majority; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of Ms. B remain confidential towards the mother and extended family members; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the child's family history be explained to him; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be prohibited; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and authorizes Ms.

B to sign all authorizations concerning the child, including for medical care, school, recreational and extracurricular activities, for travel purposes and applications for the child's medicare card and passport; [ 21 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and Ms. B; [ 22 ] THE WHOLE UNTIL THE CHILD'S AGE OF MAJORITY, [...], 2028; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed May 24, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Counsel for the child Date of hearing: May 21, 2013