2020 QCCQ 7095, 2020 QCCQ 7095

Protection de la jeunesse — 205112 2020 QCCQ 7095 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 120-41-000737-197 DATE: February 14, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE HERMINA POPESCU, Q.C.J. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X (born on [...], 2019) Child and D Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act ( Y.P.A. ) 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 ] Estimating that the child's security and development are endangered, the applicant asks that the child be entrusted to her to be placed in foster care for a period of six months. [ 2 ] The mother contests the conclusions sought and wants X to be returned to her immediately. [ 3 ] The parties are proceeding jointly in the case of Y (11 years old), Z (8 years old), A (4 years old) and B (2 years old) [1] . BACKGROUND : [ 4 ] The mother is Inuit and born in [Region A].

Her mother had her when she was a teenager and therefore she was raised by her grandmother. [ 5 ] At the age of 20, she has her first son, C. She separated from C's father following an episode of spousal abuse that C witnessed. She has been solely responsible for her son since he was born. [ 6 ] The mother left school, got a job and met the father of Y, Z and A in [Region A]. She stops drinking when she is pregnant with Y. All three children were born in [Region A] where they lived with their parents. Unfortunately, the father was diagnosed with cancer and died when A was six months old.

The mother resumed drinking and recovered after a social services intervention in [Region A]. [ 7 ] Y and Z began attending school in Iqaluit. [ 8 ] The mother met Mr. E in [Region A] in 2015. In November 2016, the mother came to live with him and his two children (then 14 and 12 years old) in Town A. The mother was accompanied by C, Y, Z and A. C is now an adult. He lived in Quebec until about a year ago. Since then, he has returned to [Region A] where he studies and works. [ 9 ] The mother speaks [langage A] and English. She does not have a driver's licence or a vehicle. Since moving to Quebec, Mr.

E has been providing for the family's needs. [ 10 ] The couple has one child, B. [ 11 ] On October 30, 2019, the mother gave birth to X. Mr. E contests that he is his father, since he believes that the mother cheated on him. Consequently, X's filiation is established solely with respect to the mother. [ 12 ] The mother always spoke to the children in [langage A]. From the age of five, Y knew how to catch and prepare fish. Since the family moved to Quebec in November 2016, the mother took the children fishing and gathering fruit in the woods.

She wants to teach them activities practiced by the Inuit and adapted to their age.

[ 13 ] Almost all of the mother's family lives in [Region A], except a sister who lives in Town B. [ 14 ] In Quebec, because of the language barrier, the mother barely socializes. She can speak to Mr.

F, the principal of the [School A] attended by Y, Z and A, who lives in Town C. [ 15 ] The mother lives in Town D because the children love their school and want to continue their schooling there. [ 16 ] Since November 27, 2018, the children have been entrusted to foster families: Y and A to the same foster family, Z and B to other foster families. [ 17 ] Since March 29, 2019, B has been with the same foster family, who, since November 1, 2019, has also taken in X.

ENDANGERMENT: [ 18 ] X's situation was brought to the applicant's attention the day after he was born. [ 19 ] On November 1, 2019, immediate protective measures were applied and X was entrusted to a foster family. Since that date, X has been in the foster family of G, who is also taking care of his sister, B. [ 20 ] The preponderant evidence establishes that, at the time of X's birth, the mother was in a relationship with Mr. E. [ 21 ] Despite the fact that the mother's pregnancy follow-up was sporadic, X was born with an Apgar score of 10/10.

At the time of his birth, he weighed 6 pounds 10 ounces. [ 22 ] The preponderant evidence establishes that an argument occurred during the mother's delivery between her and Mr. E. Thus, the mother explains that it is important for her to always be accompanied by family members during delivery. This has always been the case for all her other children. Even with B, who is her only other child born in Town D, Mr. E was present as well as her sister who lives in Town B. [ 23 ] On October 30, 2019, Mr. E brought the mother to the Town E hospital.

Due to complications, the mother had to be transported to the Town F hospital. However, Mr. E chose to return home to rest, to the mother's displeasure, as she was in labour. [ 24 ] [Social worker 1]'s assessment report states that because of the mother's past history, concerns remain about her alcohol consumption. [ 25 ] Therefore, the preponderant evidence establishes that X's safety and development are endangered as he is at serious risk of neglect due to the mother's drinking problem.

APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 26 ] The social worker, [social worker 2], explains she is in charge of X’s situation since January 7, 2020. She never met the mother before the hearing. She had to replace Ms. [social worker 1], who is on sick leave, on the spur of the moment. [ 27 ] The preponderant evidence establishes that the mother had no contact with X between November 1, 2019 and December 3, 2019 because she does not own a vehicle or a driver's licence.

She approached the organization A to obtain transportation to see X, without success. [ 28 ] With the help of Ms. [social worker 1], volunteer transportation was made available to the mother so that she could go to the Centre jeunesse A to see X. [ 29 ] Since December 3, 2019, the mother has been in contact with X. However, she has cancelled some of these contacts, in particular because during the holiday season, she went to visit her family in [Region A] and, subsequently, her sister in Town B.

The mother explains that she needed her family's support, considering the fact that she is depressed because her children have been placed in care. She also canceled a couple of contacts because she was sick. [ 30 ] Ms. [social worker 2] believes that a return of X to his mother is not possible, for the reasons expressed by her college, [social worker 3], in the situation of Y, Z, A and B [2] . [ 31 ] As the Tribunal mentioned in its decision rendered today in the situation of X's brother and sisters,

section 3 of the Youth Protection Act [3] ( YPA ) provides that any decision concerning a child must be made in the child's best interests. This implies a personalized analysis of the child's situation, which must take into account all aspects of the child's situation. Moreover, in the case of an indigenous child, the preservation of his or her cultural identity is also taken into consideration. [ 32 ] Furthermore,

section 2.3 YPA provides that any intervention with the child and his or her parents under this Act must " favour the means that allow the child and the child’s parents to take an active

part in making decisions and choosing measures that concern them ". [ 33 ]

Section 2.4

(5) YPA provides that any intervention under YPA must take into account, amongst other, the characteristics of [Origin A] communities (of which the Inuit are a part). [ 34 ] The Court refers to the analysis carried out in the decisions rendered in the situation of X’s siblings [4] . [ 35 ] Thus, as the Tribunal expressed it in these decisions, the intervention in place with X must also be aimed at preserving his cultural identity.

[ 36 ] Also, as the Tribunal pointed out in the above decisions, the intervention with the mother ignored the characteristics of the [Origin B] communities, in spite of the very clear terms of

section 2.4 of the YPA . [ 37 ] It is true that there are no organizations that can help the [Origin C] in the region. However, the evidence does not allow us to conclude that steps were taken by the applicant to provide the mother with services adapted to her culture and provided in a language she understands. [ 38 ] It is questioning that the assessment and orientation reports were given to the mother in French only, even though she speaks only [langage A] and English. [ 39 ] The preponderant evidence does not support the conclusion that the mother has a drug problem.

However, she has an alcohol use problem that appears to be decreasing in recent months. [ 40 ] Because of the mother's past history, it is important that she be able to benefit from a service to help her with her alcohol consumption as well as psychologically. Obviously, she must be served in a language she understands, in this case English. [ 41 ] Because of the fragility of the mother's situation, due to her personal difficulties, and the lack of adequate services, X's immediate return cannot be considered.

However, the intervention in place must focus on a gradual return of the child to his mother by the end of this Order. [ 42 ] It goes without saying that Mr. E must be absent from the mother's home at all times when X is there.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 43 ] Declares that the security and development of X are endangered; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection until August 14, 2020 , under the following conditions: [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child be placed in the care of a foster family, chosen by an establishment that operates a child and youth centre; [ 46 ] NOTES that this foster family is the one of G; [ 47 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and his mother shall take place in following agreement between all parties and that, failing an agreement, such contacts shall be for a minimum of 4 hours per week and that such contacts shall be increased progressively as of the month following this Order, so that the child's integration with his mother shall be effective at the end of this Order; [ 48 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that Mr.

E is not present at any time during contact with the child; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make surprise visits when the child is with his mother; [ 50 ] ORDERS the mother to be sober at all times when the child is with her; [ 51 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that, when the child is with her, the child is not exposed to intoxicated people or inappropriate situations; [ 52 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother and child receive culturally appropriated services; [ 53 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother be involved in alcohol and psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by concerned professionals; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the care and services required by his situation; [ 55 ] ORDERS the applicant to provide help, advice and assistance to the child and to his mother; [ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the enforcement of this Order. __________________________________ HERMINA POPESCU, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Goulet goulet bernard & langlais For the applicant M e Carol Abud For the child M e Bruno Gabriel Vargas For the mother Dates of hearing: December 16, 2019, February 4, 5 and 6, 2020