2019 QCCQ 15050, 2019 QCCQ 15050

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911732 2019 QCCQ 15050 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] “Youth Division” N° : 640-41-002205-182 DATE : November 27, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE WILHELMY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2017 and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). Introduction [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on November 27, 2019. [ 2 ] The court is seized of an application for extension presented by the Director of youth protection (DYP) of a decision rendered on October 3, 2018, requesting that the security and development of the child be declared still in danger. [ 3 ] Consequently DYP asks the Court to entrust the child to a foster family until his age of majority, as well as other measures to resolve the situation. [ 4 ] At the last court date, the Court had the opportunity to hear the foster parents and the parties agreed to continue the case on November 27, 2019, and to use the proof that was then made.

Question in litigation [ 5 ] Are the security and development of the child still compromised? In the affirmative, do the recommended measures answer her needs and are they in her best interest? Context and Analysis [ 6 ] The proof reveals that the mother have an history of alcohol consumption. [ 7 ] X lived with his mother for his first 4 months of life. [ 8 ] After that and until November 2018, the child was placed 11 different families.

[ 9 ] At the last hearing the foster parents confirms the Court that they agree to take care of the child until his majority, to make sure that his health needs are met, to maintain contacts with his family in the North, and with his cultural roots. [ 10 ] The mother disagree with the recommendations. She will agree to the placement of X for 6 months and after she wants to regain custody of her child. [ 11 ] She is presently in treatment at [Center A] to work on her alcohol addiction and she have not seen her son during the last year, because she was twice in jail.

During the previous 8 months she did not took care of her son and she could have. [ 12 ] The mother’s attorney plead the fact that the rights of the mother to be heard by the court was not respected, because she was not present the first day. [ 13 ] Today we had the chance to benefit of the extensive testimony of the mother. She explains her situation and the Court [ 14 ] With much respect to this opinion, the Court consider that the rights of the mother were fully respected.

Her lawyer was present and the hearing of the first day was available for the mother and her attorney. [ 15 ] Another legal argument submitted by the mother’s attorney is that

article 3 of the Youth Protection act includes one specific criteria that can guide the judge when analysing a case. It is the preservation of his cultural identity. [ 16 ] Again with respect, the Court says that this criteria is one among others. It is not the only one and even this criteria is met according to the testimonies of the foster parents. [ 17 ] X have lived more than half his life without being under the care of his mother.

He is receiving all that he needs in the foster family and the interest of a child is the basis of any judgement render on the Youth Protection Act . [ 18 ] DYP did everything possible to find a foster family in the community and elsewhere in the North, and the only family suitable for X was the one in which he is presently. [ 19 ] The Commission Viens have suggested that the

article according to which a maximum period of placement authorize the placement of a child until majority, should not apply to native children. [ 20 ] For the moment the law is not modified and the placement of X have reach his maximum period. [ 21 ] It is not realistic to believe that during the next six months the mother will have regain the abilities to take care of X and that X, who will continue to receive response in the foster family, will be available to live with his mother, and be separated from his main caregivers. [ 22 ] X cannot wait any longer for his mother to be stabilized, as the notion of time for a child is not the same as for an adult. [ 23 ] The present decision is meant to insure the stability of the child. [ 24 ] After taking into consideration the documentary evidence, the testimonies and the position of the parties, the Court finds that the evidence is sufficient to declare that security and development of the child are still in danger and that the measures suggested meet his needs and deemed to be in his best interest.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still compromised; [ 27 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on October 3, 2017 ; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the foster family of Ms. B and Mr.

C ; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be supervised by the DYP as to the frequency and modalities, be held in person at least twice a year, and other contacts are authorized by phone or by Visio conference ; [ 30 ] ORDERS the mother to report periodically to the DYP on the measures she apply in her own regard or in her child’s regard, to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger ; [ 31 ] ORDERS the mother to take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the tribunal ; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother to report in person at regular intervals, to the DYP to inform him of the current situation ; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family ; [ 34 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the attributes of parental authority concerning travel, health, schooling including the drivers licence; [ 35 ] GRANTS the exercise of those attributes of parental authority to the foster parents [ 36 ] ENTRUST the situation of the child to the DYP who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

THE WHOLE , until [...], 2035. ___________________________________ Dominique Wilhelmy, J.C.Q. Signed on Mtre Adèle Cyr Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Laurence Migué Counsel for the mother Mtre Éliane Villemur Counsel for the child