2016 QCCQ 17891, 2016 QCCQ 17891

Protection de la jeunesse — 168806 2016 QCCQ 17891 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41- 021043-088 DATE : November 25, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2007 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on November 25 th , 2016. . [ 2 ] In December 2015, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision of a decision rendered by the undersigned on April 20 th , 2015 [ 3 ] Initially, the Director is asking that the child be fostered in a rehabilitation centre and therefore requests a provisional compulsory order to that effect. [ 4 ] During the Court process, after the child had been fostered in a rehabilitation centre for six months, the Director and all parties agreed for the temporary and progressive reintegration of the child into her foster family. [ 5 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Director is asking that the Court ordered measures entrusting the child to the foster family of Mrs.

C be maintained until the child’s age of majority. The Director is now only asking the Court to rule on the contacts the child may have with her brother Y and to recommend that the mother avail herself of support and counselling services offered at her CLSC. [ 6 ] On February 4 th , 2016, the father requested to have the inquiry postponed so that he be represented by a lawyer. The father was then asking to have his home assessed as he wanted the child to be entrusted to his care.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the father is not present for the half-day hearing scheduled for his contestation of the recommendations presented by the Director.

[ 7 ] The mother’s lawyer has indicated that her client was supporting father’s desire to have the child entrusted to his care. At the conclusion of the hearing, the mother is absent. It is noted that the mother was in favour of the recommendation made by the Director that she receive services from her CLSC. [ 8 ] Counsel for the child has been in agreement, throughout the Court process, with the different recommendations made. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the child’s lawyer insists on the importance of providing consistency and predictability to the child.

In that sense, the lawyer suggests that the Court imposes on the father to meet with the worker on at least two occasions before contacts between the child and her father are resumed. CONTEXT [ 9 ] A permanent plan has already been made for the child as Court ordered on April 20 th , 2015. [ 10 ] From April until December 2015, the behaviours of the child have gradually deteriorated. The child became verbally aggressive toward her foster mother. The child no longer respected the rules of the foster home.

She also exhibited behavioural difficulties at school. [ 11 ] Given the deterioration, the services of an educator were provided to the foster family and child but to no avail. [ 12 ] Despite the continued commitment of the foster mother towards the child, she requested that the child be removed from her care and the child was oriented to a rehabilitation centre where she received the services that she needed. [ 13 ] From mi-December 2015 until the end of June 2016, the child remained in a rehabilitation centre. As early as February 2016, the child’s reintegration to the foster family was slowly started.

Services were provided both to the child and the foster mother in order for this reintegration to continue successfully. [ 14 ] The revision process initiated by the Director in order to obtain a rehabilitation centre court order for the child allowed the father to reiterate his desire to have the child entrusted to his care. The father does not collaborate with the Director and visits the child, from time to time, approximately three or four times a year. [ 15 ] Nonetheless, a request for a home study assessment of the father was sent to Children’s Aid Society A.

The father and his partner collaborated with the assessment. Recommendations were made for the father and his partner to seek out counselling and attend a parenting program. [ 16 ] The father did not follow through with the recommendations. He has since visited the child only on one occasion, for her birthday. The father did not present himself at Court nor indicated his position regarding the recommendations made by the Director. [ 17 ] Once more, the father has displayed his lack of commitment to the child.

When stability and continuity of care are so important, he raised the possibility to have the child integrated to his care without following up on his own suggestion. [ 18 ] In July 2016, the Director assessed a new signalement pertaining to the child and came to the conclusion that the child had been sexually abused by her brother Y, approximately four to five years ago, when both children were under their mother’s care.

Under the circumstances, contacts between the child and her brother were temporarily suspended. [ 19 ] Now that the child has been successfully reintegrated back into her long-term foster family, the permanent plan already made for the child is no longer at stake. The court process has allowed for the child to receive, temporarily, the services that she needed from the rehabilitation centre. The commitment of the foster mother towards the child and the attachment of the child towards her foster parent remain.

Stability, continuity of care and predictability are therefore provided to the child. [ 20 ] In order to provide the child with coherence and to avoid any kind of anxiety related to her place of living, it is necessary for the Director to ascertain that the father is motivated and committed to keep significant and meaningful contacts with the child without jeopardising her stability. Before contacts resume, the father will have to meet with the Director and share his views on the situation.

Only then will the Director be in a position to determine appropriate modalities, including possible supervision, so that contacts between the child and her father continue to take place in the best interest of the child. [ 21 ] Considering the recent signalement of sexual abuse, contacts between the child and her brother Y will be suspended until therapeutic services are provided and appropriate measures can be taken in order to protect the child. [ 22 ] In order to support the mother who was said to have difficulty dealing with the nature of the signalement as well as personal issues, the Court can only encourage the mother to seek any services that may support her in being a stronger parent. [ 23 ] The Director has established that, finally, the permanent plan already made remains the best plan for the child.

Accessory measures should be rendered in order to fully meet the needs of the child.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] MAINTAINS all of the measures rendered on April 20th, 2015, namely : [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster home until her age of majority; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection has chosen the current foster family, the one of Mrs. C;

[ 28 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of the foster family remain confidential to the parents; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] SETS the minimum frequency of contacts between the child and her mother at once (1) every two (2) weeks; [ 31 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercice of parental authority save the obligation to provide surveillance; [ 32 ] GIVES these responsibilities to Mrs.

C; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the health and care services required by her situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS the parents to meet with the worker when requested to do so by the Director; [ 36 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family until her age of majority; [ 37 ] ADDS the following measures : [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be organized once the father has met, on at least two (2) occasions, with the worker to discuss his motivation and commitment to resume contacts and to be informed of expectations regarding these contacts; [ 39 ] SETS the minimum frequency of contacts between the child and her father at three (3) contacts per year; [ 40 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the child and her brother Y for a period of one (1) year, ALLOWING contacts to resume if and when therapeutic services have been provided to both children and when the Director of Youth Protection is satisfied, after consulting the professionals involved, that these contacts would be in the best interest of X; [ 41 ] After that year, ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine the frequency and modalities of contacts between X and her brother Y, taking into consideration the desires of X; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS to the mother to avail herself of support and counseling services; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Claudine Du Sablon Attorney for the child Me Judith Shapiro Knight Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : November 25 th , 2016