2011 QCCQ 14247, 2011 QCCQ 14247

Protection de la jeunesse — 113369 2011 QCCQ 14247 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001259-107 DATE: July 6, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A. working in city A, district A, Québec Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, district A, Quebec Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city A, district A, Quebec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on March 1, 2011, concerning X, born on […], 2009. [ 2 ] The mother and the child are represented but only the mother is present. As for the father the serving of the application is irregular. He is contacted by his lawyer and his intention was not to present himself even if he is not in agreement with the demand of the Director of Youth Protection.

Consequently, the Court proceeds. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends the foster care of the child in a foster family, until the child reaches the age of majority. The foster mother is the paternal aunt of the child. The mother is in agreement with the recommendation, considering that the child has been under the care of the aunt for the past twenty-two (22) months. Nevertheless, she denies not being able to assume her parental responsibilities towards her daughter.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] On March 16, 2010, the Court ordered the foster care of the child in a foster family for a period of nine (9) months. But as soon as June 8, 2009, the child was, under an agreement on voluntary measures, entrusted to the paternal grandmother. Soon after, following family conflicts the child was fostered in a foster family for a period of one (1) month before being transferred to the home of

the paternal aunt, who has since assumed the parental responsibilities towards the child. [ 5 ] Consequently, the child has been living in the family of the aunt for more than twenty-two (22) months. [ 6 ] Today, the mother recognises that the child is deeply attached to the aunt and that she calls her mother. [ 7 ] The testimony of the social worker outlines the poor collaboration of the mother and the father is not involved in the life of his daughter.

His presence in Court the last time was an event considering his attitude towards his responsibilities. [ 8 ] Overall the situation with the parents remains similar to the one described in the previous judgment. The mother is pregnant and is not at this point in time abusing alcohol or drugs. The father is still consuming in excess and does not collaborate with the Direction of Youth Protection. The mother resides at her parent's house but the situation is tense given family conflicts. [ 9 ] As for the aunt, she is interested in assuming the child on a long-term basis.

The child is considered as member of the family. She explains that the situation was difficult at the beginning since she is an autonomous worker and had to make arrangements to succeed in assuming financial and supervision issues. She has to travel for her work, and is a single mother with two other children. [ 10 ] She does not object to access and visitation rights between the child and her parents. An incident took place with her brother the last time he presented himself to visit his daughter.

She decided to make a statement (statutory declaration) to the police and at the same time she states that her brother is in great need of help, services and guidance. [ 11 ] Visits up north are complicated but at the same time necessary for the child, according the aunt. The child must see her relatives and from a familial and cultural point of view, these contacts are important. [ 12 ] The Court is convinced that the child cannot be reintegrated with the parents, The Court is also convinced that the bond between the child and the aunt is strong and essential to her development and well being.

This fact is recognised by the mother who views the delay elapsed since the first foster care measure as an obstacle to reintegration, notwithstanding her personal and conjugal situation. [ 13 ] The evidences convinces the Court that the interest of the child, added to the delays as specified in the law is to be entrusted to his aunt, the acting foster family. [ 14 ] As for access and visitation rights between the parents and the child, the evidence further convinces the Court that they have to be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 15 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child in danger; [ 18 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered on March 1, 2011; [ 19 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) the foster care of the child in a foster family, until she reaches the age of majority and designates the aunt Madam C, as the foster family, chosen by the Director of Youth Protection;

b) that a person working for an organism or establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents, the child and the aunt, during the foster care measure; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES and MAINTAINS the personal relations between the parents and the child; [ 21 ] ORDERS that access and visitation rights be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection, as for the frequency and modalities; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Lawyer for the child Me Alexandre Cimon

Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer of the father Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer of the mother Date of hearing: June 14, 2011