2021 QCCQ 17303, 2021 QCCQ 17303

Protection de la jeunesse — 2110068 2021 QCCQ 17303 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001826-145 DATE: November 8, 2021 (written judgment rendered on February 7, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on May 6, 2016, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, namely that of Ms. C until [...], 2032. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that after having been placed a few months in another foster family, the child could return to her former foster family, but recommend a placement of one year.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served, and despite many attempts made by the DYP to ensure the mother’s presence, the mother is absent and not represented. The Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. He is totally absent from his daughter’s life and from the follow-up with the DYP since 2016. He confirms being in agreement with the measures suggested by the DYP. [ 5 ] The child is now 7 years old. She is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune.

On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune mentions that the child is very happy to be back with her foster mother and that a 6-month measures should be sufficient in the circumstances before making a long-term decision. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On November 11, 2014 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The child was 7 months old. The mother had an alcohol consumption issue, and left her child without proper supervision. The father was detained. In August 2014, the child had been entrusted to a foster family under voluntary measures.

Finally, the mother mentioned that she acknowledge her difficulties and that she would like to receive help. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family with a possible reintegration with the parents, the whole until May 20, 2015. [ 7 ] On January 8, 2015 , after numerous postponements requested by the parents, the Court heard the application for revision in their absence. The parents were not involved in the child’s life, and discussion about a traditional adoption took place.

The father was still detained, the mother was still struggling with her alcohol addiction and the parents had no stable place to stay. The Court maintained the child entrusted to a foster family and ordered that a life plan be prepared, the whole until April 13, 2016. [ 8 ] On May 6, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The parents agreed with the placement requested by the DYP. The Court entrusted the child to Ms. C until she reaches her majority.

[ 9 ] On June 3, 2021 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the child to a foster family. Facts [ 10 ] Since the last decision, the child remained under the care of Ms. C. She was there since she was 2 months old. She was developing very well there. [ 11 ] Everything went well until May 10, 2021, when a report was received regarding physical abuse on the part of the foster mother. At that date, the child arrived at school with red spots around her eyes and on her neck.

The child disclosed that her foster mother would choke her every time she consumes alcohol which means every day. [ 12 ] The child was immediately removed from her foster family and entrusted to Ms. D, the foster mother’s sister. The visits at Ms. C’s place were allowed considering the very strong bonds between the child and her foster mother. [ 13 ] The DYP worker met the child at Ms. D’s place on June 11, 2021, and everything was OK. On July 28, 2021, the DYP learned that D was in Montreal for her pregnancy follow-up and C was escorting her. The child was at C’s place under the care of her other sister, Ms. E.

The situation was still positive, Ms. E was deemed reliable, the child confirmed feeling safe and also mentioned that no event of physical violence occurred during her contact with C. [ 14 ] On August 24, 2021, the foster department reassessed the foster mother. The house was very adequate. The foster mother confirmed that the child was visiting her regularly and asked to be back at home. A new calendar of visits was made including sleepovers. Ms. C mentioned many times being conscious of the impact of what she did on May 10, 2021, and having a lot of remorse about that.

She wants the reintegration of the child and commit to make sure that she child will feel safe at any time. Ms. C thanks the DYP for the follow-up she received. [ 15 ] The reintegration started in early September 2021. Considering the extended contacts were positive and also considering the very great collaboration of Ms. C, the integration was completed at the end of the month. [ 16 ] On October 5, and 13, 2021, meetings took place with the child. She confirmed being happy to be back at home with whom she considers as her mother. Ms.

C controls her alcohol consumption and makes sure that reliable sober adults are always present if she consumes. [ 17 ] The position of the child is the same in November when the Court proceed with the hearing. The DYP worker plans to make a close follow-up in this situation. She is also confident that the child will not hesitate to speak about any issues that could occur and to cross the street to go to her “aunt’s place” (Ms. D’s place) if needed. [ 18 ] The foster mother continues to offer a very good collaboration.

She always welcomes the DYP worker during the announced visits, she regrets what she did and she was really scared to lose her “daughter.” [ 19 ] The Court questioned the DYP worker about the follow-up made in this file. Indeed, while the child mentioned in May that her foster mother was abusive toward her each time she drink and that she drink every day, the Court would like to know how such situation was not known before.

The Court also asked if the DYP considers that many events of violence occurred while the foster mother only recognizes one. [ 20 ] The DYP worker honestly answered that she ignores if other events happened. The child was not questioned more about that and even if a video interview was made at the police station, the DYP worker did not watch it.

The school was not contacted either. [ 21 ] Regarding the follow-up made in this file since the last decision, the DYP worker does not have the exact dates to provide to the Court, but asserts that this child had been met around once or twice a year and admits that such frequency is not sufficient. [ 22 ] The mother resides in the same village and has sporadic contacts with the child. The DYP ignores the frequency of those contacts. Analysis [ 23 ] The DYP pleads that the duration of one year would be in the best interest of the child to ensure a closer follow-up in this situation.

Confronted to the fact that for a one-year measure or a majority placement, the follow-up has to be done properly, Me Cyr answer that unfortunately, the follow-up will be more intense if the measure is for one year only. [ 24 ] Not being satisfied with such answer, the Court give time to the DYP to give more detail in written comments. [ 25 ] Me Neptune submits after the hearing that a 6-month measure would be enough to determine if the life plan is still in the best interest of the child. [ 26 ] The Court took acknowledge of the written comments provided by the DYP.

Those comments confirm the position given at the hearing. The DYP considers this placement as fragile and would like to perform a close follow-up before recommending to the Court a long-term placement. [ 27 ] Moreover, the DYP adds that a long-term placement, being considered as stable, benefit from a less regular follow-up than a temporary placement which is considered as unstable. [ 28 ] The Court agrees to say that a long-term placement having been ordered by the Court who had the opportunity to hear a complete evidence should be considered as stable.

If such placement had been ordered, it is because it fulfills the child best interest and answers his needs.

[ 29 ] That being said, a child placed under the YPA is a child who the security and development have been declared endangered and doing so, is a child in need of protection. Being in need of protection, no matter what is the duration of the placement, this child deserves that his/her situation is appropriately followed by the DYP. [ 30 ] Obviously, in a long-term placement, we should consider that, despite his/her situation is declared endangered under the law, he/she is safe in his/her foster family. Otherwise, the placement would not achieve its goal.

But the fact that a child is safe in his/her foster family does not mean that this child should not be a priority for the DYP in the follow-up this organization has to provide. [ 31 ] The difference between the follow-up made in a long-term placement and the follow-up made in a short placement is only regarding the services provided to help the parents to resolve their issues which put the child in a situation of endangerment and/or for an adolescent to address his behavioural issues. [ 32 ] The duration of the placement should not mean that verification about his/her safety is done less frequently. [ 33 ] In this situation, the evidence does not show that this placement is fragile.

Indeed, the DYP made no steps to know more about the events of violence. Is there only one or did it occur every day? The DYP did not consider necessary to make verification about that, so the Court should consider that there is only one event, the one of May 10, 2021. [ 34 ] Following this event, the foster mother accepted the intervention of the DYP and the removal of the child. She recognized her mistake and thanks the DYP for the services she received. The child asserts being safe and very happy to be back home.

Nothing in the evidence could bring the Court to conclude that this placement is fragile. [ 35 ] If this placement is fragile, a more regular follow-up would have been required since the removal of the child. However, only monthly follow-up was done.

If the DYP had concerns about the child’s safety, well-being and feelings, a closer follow-up would have been required. [ 36 ] The Court has the evidence that a very sad event occurred, but luckily the foster mother realized the seriousness of the situation, modified her way of life, prioritized the child’s well-being and despite such event, the child wants to stay with her “mother.” Six months after the event, the evidence does not show that this placement is fragile. [ 37 ] The Court maintains the child under the care of Ms. C until she reaches her majority.

The Court cannot endorse the fact that a short-term placement would permit the child to have a closer follow-up than a child being entrusted on a long term basis. Doing so, the Court reminds the DYP that his obligations are the same. [ 38 ] Moreover, the Court underlines the lack of follow-up in this situation between 2016 and May 2021 which had been admitted by the DYP worker. Such default should not last longer.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the application; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...] , 2014, are still endangered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely to Ms. C; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until the child reaches her majority. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child

Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 8, 2021