2012 QCCQ 17531, 2012 QCCQ 17531

Protection de la jeunesse — 127043 2012 QCCQ 17531 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 635-41-000431-111 DATE: October 23, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2001 (SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in A city, Quebec, district A Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in A city, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in B city, Quebec, district A Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 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 July 19, 2012, concerning the child X, born on […], 2001. [ 2 ] The child is present and represented. The mother has left the region A, since the end of July 2012, and notwithstanding service by newspaper, she is absent. The interested party, acting parent, is present and represented. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The evidence includes the psychological assessment of Mr. B, the review report and its complement and the documents related to an incident in July 2012. [ 5 ] Evidence also includes the admissions made by the interested party and the child, the testimonies of the social worker and the interested party. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that the interested party is not the biological father of the child. He has been present in the life of the child on a permanent basis and the child identifies him as her father and his other children from another union, as her siblings.

[ 7 ] The evidence namely the testimony of the social worker convinces the Court that the child can, for the time being, remain with the interested party, until July 19, 2013, at which time, the Court shall review the situation of all the children. [ 8 ] Considering the absence of the mother and the difficulties linked to various authorizations in such cases, the withdrawal of certain parental rights is in the best interest of the child. [ 9 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 11 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child in danger; [ 12 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered on July 19, 2012; [ 13 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law: - maintains and entrusts the child to Mr. B, until July 19, 2013; - that a person working for an establishment or organism provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the interested party; - that Mr.

B participates and collaborates with the measures proposed to correct the situation; [ 14 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of the following rights of parental authority from the mother, until July 19, 2013: medical authorizations, travel authorizations including passport demand and school authorizations; [ 15 ] AUTHORIZES personal relations between the mother and the child; [ 16 ] ORDERS that access, visitation rights and contacts between the mother and the child be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 17 ] 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 Myriame Gaudreault Lawyer for the teenager Me Robert-André Adam Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for the interested party Date of hearing: October 2, 2012