2022 QCCQ 14340, 2022 QCCQ 14340

Protection de la jeunesse — 229037 2022 QCCQ 14340 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002522-206 DATE: June 9, 2022 (written judgment rendered on June 13, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2017 [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 and prolong a decision rendered on October 22, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2017. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until October 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and suggests that the child be entrusted to Ms. C and Mr. D until the age of majority.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served, the mother is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in her absence. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and that the maximum period of placement is reached, but he asks to disregards those delays because a return of the child under his care would be possible in a short delay. If the Court orders the placement until the child’s majority, he asks to have contacts with his son. [ 5 ] The child is 4 years old.

He is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. After hearing the evidence, Me Neptune submits that the situation of the child continues to be endangered and that the measures are in his best interest. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On October 22, 2020 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. He was 3 years old. The mother was homeless in Town A and had no contacts with her son for the last year. The father was the main caregiver. The father was verbally abusive toward the child. The father has a long history of violence against his spouse, children and police officers.

He also had alcohol consumption issues and exposed his child to this consumption. He did not collaborate with the DYP. Despite the non-collaboration of the father, the DYP asked that the child remain with his father. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered different services for the father, the whole until October 31, 2021. [ 7 ] The hearing for revision was postponed from October 2021, to June 2022. During that time, the child remained entrusted to a foster family.

Facts [ 8 ] After the last decision, the child was entrusted to his paternal aunt, but quickly an event of violence occurred and the foster family was closed.

[ 9 ] In March 2021, he was entrusted to the specialized foster family in Town B. He had opportunity to have contacts with his paternal grandparents during that period. [ 10 ] On April 17, 2021, after having requested to the father if someone could foster the child and after making a request to the foster home department, Ms. C, former responsible for the specialized foster family in Town B, said being interested by fostering the child. The child was entrusted under her care down South. [ 11 ] Since October 2021, the father nor the mother requested any contact with the child.

The father was aggressive each time the DYP worker tries to communicate with him. [ 12 ] During spring 2021, the mother came back living in Town B. The mother was met and she clearly expresses that she does not want to be involved in the child’s life nor to have any contacts. She wanted the child to be back under the father’s care. [ 13 ] In March 2022, the mother presented herself at the DYP office and mentioned being interested to have contact with her son and to be involved in his life.

The DYP told her being available to work with her, but unfortunately, she did not give any news since that time. [ 14 ] The DYP confirms being also available to organize contacts between the child and the father, but for now the father as a hostile attitude toward the DYP workers and refuse to speak with them. [ 15 ] Ms. C testifies and confirms being available to take care of the child until he reaches his majority and more. He is developing very well at her place, and she understands the importance to maintain the child in contact with his culture.

She agrees to travel to Town B with him and to participate in different cultural activities. Ms. C is living in the [Region A] where there are numerous families fostering Inuit children and they do a lot of activities together. Analysis [ 16 ] The situation of the child continues to be endangered and the parents took no step to improve their situation nor to have their child back under their care. [ 17 ] The parents are totally disinvested since, at least, the last decision. [ 18 ] The father justifies his non-collaboration by the fact that the DYP refuses to give him access to his son.

Not only the Court was not provided with evidence that the father would have requested any contacts, but if he had asked, the Court has no evidence that the DYP would be refused such. [ 19 ] Despite the nature of his position, the father decided not to attend the hearing and doing so he had renounced to expose his point of view to the Court. The file is on the court docket since October 6, 2021 (8 months). The recommendation of a placement until majority is known since December 2021 (6 months) and the father took no steps to change the situation.

He would have time to do so. [ 20 ] The child was entrusted in October 2020. He was 3 years old at that time. According to

section 91.1, the maximum period of placement is 18 months. Today, the child is entrusted for more than 19 months including almost 14 months in his current foster family. The Court concludes that the delay is reached. [ 21 ] The father asks to disregard this delay, but the father did not provide any evidence that the child could be returned under his care in a short delay nor that it would be in his interest. [ 22 ] The plan suggested by the DYP fulfill all the child’s needs and it is in his best interest to give him the opportunity to maintain the stability earned.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2017, are still endangered; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms. C and Mr. D until the age of majority; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the father actively participate in the follow-up with the Youth Protection; [ 29 ] 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; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 33 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2035. __________________________________ 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: June 9, 2022