2021 QCCQ 15276, 2021 QCCQ 15276

Protection de la jeunesse — 218772 2021 QCCQ 15276 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-001004-206 DATE: September 20, 2021 (written judgment rendered on December 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] 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 2, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2015. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, until September 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and that the placement in a foster family has to be prolonged until September 30, 2022.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Ève Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures, but asks that her daughter be reintegrated under her care if she completed Treatment Center A and maintain her sobriety. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. He was recently released from detention and came back living in Town A. The application was served on September 15, and he clearly mentioned, at that time, that he did not want to attend the hearing.

Considering the best interest of the child, the Court proceed in the absence of the father. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett. On her client’s behalf and after hearing the evidence, Me Sinnett submits to the Court that the situation continue to be endangered and that the measures suggested being in her best interest. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On January 20, 2020 , the Court was seized with the child’s situation. She was 3 ½ years old. Her situation was known from the DYP since February 2018, as she was followed under voluntary measures.

At that time, the mother recognized her drug consumption issues which prevented her from taking care of her child. Since September 2018, the child was entrusted to a foster family, still on voluntary measures. The mother recognized that her consumption issues were still present and that she would like to work to better her educational methods. The mother’s collaboration with the DYP is irregular as well as her presence for the contacts with the child. The child was doing well in her foster family (extended family members), but the foster family was ambivalent regarding her commitment.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family and recommends that she remain in the same one. The Court also ordered that the child attend daycare and that the mother and the child receive the services of an external educator, the whole until September 30, 2020. [ 7 ] On October 2, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. Between the last decision and the end of July 2020, the child was transferred 3 times. The last foster family decided in July 2020, to give up and to give back the child to the mother without notifying the

DYP. The DYP assessed the situation and considered that it would be indeed in the best interest of the child to remain with her mother. Before this return, the mother was not collaborative. After her child’s return, she was able to reduce her alcohol consumption and not to consume cannabis in the presence of the child. According to the observations, the child was doing very well under her mother’s care. Unfortunately in September 2020, the DYP was made aware that the situation was not so positive.

Indeed, the mother still has consumption issues, but did not fully recognize it, the child was not attending school regularly and the mother was at that time too intoxicated to care for the child. Considering the DYP did not take the proper steps to find a foster family before the Court and no one was available, the Court maintained the child under her mother’s care no later than October 9, 2020, and entrusted the child to a foster family a soon as one is available, the whole until September 20, 2021. [ 8 ] On June 21, 2021 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures.

The Court withdrawn certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and authorized the DYP to register the child at school in the [Region A] or in Town B and authorizes the DYP to access the child’s medical file. Facts [ 9 ] After the last decision, the child had been entrusted to Ms. C and Mr. D in Town C. She was registered at school there, and she was doing well academically. Her behaviour required some interventions from the school staff and as Ms. C worked at the school, she took care of the child when needed.

Also, with the services of the external educator, she was able to improve her behaviour. [ 10 ] The child had several appointments with the dentist. The mother was collaborative and consented to all the dental and health services. The child was also assessed by an audiologist who recommended that the child wear hearing aids, but the mother refused. After many attempts and the help of the extended family, the mother finally agreed and the child should receive her hearing aids soon. [ 11 ] The mother situation remained the same since the last order.

She still displays consumption issues (cannabis daily and alcohol when she gets invited). She had completed her registration to Treatment Centre A, but she did not complete the following steps to insure her admission. On September 6, the mother was passed out in her house and the fire alarm was ringing. She was unable to intervene. [ 12 ] Her collaboration with the DYP services and the external educator also remained very inconsistent. She is aggressive sometimes with the DYP worker. That being said, an improvement is noted regarding her interaction with her daughter.

She attends the visits and she is organized (food, clean house and better preparation to see her child). The mother saw her daughter twice a month. [ 13 ] The father is still not involved and does not recognize X as his child. He does not collaborate with the DYP, and he was detained from April 2020 until recently. [ 14 ] The foster family moved back down South in June 2021, after being a few years [in Region A]. The mother disagreed with the placement in Town C and was much more in disagreement with the moving down South.

A Court decision was needed to allow the foster parents to register the child at school in Town B. [ 15 ] The DYP imposed to the foster parents to register the child in an English school. The foster parents agreed, but short after their arrival down South, they considered that it would be too demanding for them and decided to register the child in a French school. The DYP made clear with them that such decision would justify the child’s departure from their house. [ 16 ] Ms. E and Mr.

F, who fostered the child in the past, informed the DYP that they regret their decision to give up on her and would be interested to foster her again and would be available on a long term basis. The reason they gave up in the past is unknown. The service of an external educator can be added to make sure that this placement will be a success. The external educator is in Town A one week per month and could also offer services by videoconference if needed. [ 17 ] The DYP made the child travelling. At the date of the hearing, the child was finishing her quarantine and was supposed to start school the day after.

The DYP plans to maintain the child in this foster family for the duration of the measure. Also, the mother has a good relation with those foster parents, so the DYP does not foresee any issues with the respect of the modalities of contacts. Also, the mother is happy to know that her daughter is back in Town A.

This should be helpful to obtain her collaboration. [ 18 ] The mother is pregnant and she started the steps to attend [Treatment Center A] Due to the lack of collaboration and communication, the DYP worker was not aware of that. [ 19 ] The DYP worker confirms that she agree with frequents contacts between the mother and the child as long as the mother is sober. Indeed, the bonds are very strong between both and there is no reason not to organize contacts. Also, the contacts will be increased according to the evolution of the situation, but will start without sleepovers.

Moreover, the DYP will make sure that the child is well adapted to the routine at school and the routine in her foster family before increasing too much the contacts. If the mother wants, the participation of the extended family members could be appropriate. [ 20 ] The DYP worker mentions that the following conditions will have to be reunited to permit the reintegration under the mother’s care: completion of Treatment Program A, maintain of the sobriety and participation to a follow-up for anger management issues.

Analysis [ 21 ] The parties recognize, as it showed by the evidence, that the situation of the child remain endangered. The parties also agree that the child should be entrusted to a foster family. But, despite those agreements, this situation raises many aspects and many questions to be answered. [ 22 ] It is important to remind that the maximum period of placement was reached in March 2020.

The Court is sure that if everything had gone well in school in Town B, the DYP would have asked a long-term placement with this foster family. [ 23 ] This plan does not work anymore, but that changes nothing regarding to the fact that the maximum period is reached.

[ 24 ] The mother asks that the child be reintegrated under her care and offers different conditions she commits to respect. But the evidence is unclear about the plan the mother suggests. She would like to attend [Treatment Center A], but she ignores when she will be able to go to. When her lawyer asked her how she foresees the following months, she is unable to answer. For sure the Court would like that the mother address and resolve her issues. And she is invited to do it actively. But it is not the first time she is invited to do that.

As of today, her plan is still very unclear. [ 25 ] The reintegration is always possible, but without more precise plan from the mother’s part, it will be the reintegration established by the law, which is within the last 60 days of the measure. [ 26 ] During that time, the child will be in a foster family. She will benefit from the stability that she deserve. During that time, the mother will have time to take care of her and of her newborn.

She knows what she has to do and it is still possible for her to achieve this goal, but she has to take urgent and serious steps to do that. [ 27 ] The contacts have to be determined by the DYP and the Court reminds the mother about the importance to respect the modalities. The child needs stability and the mother has to encourage this stability. That being said, the contacts are positive so as long as it remains positive, those contacts will have to be increased to maintain the very strong bonds already present with her mother.

The same comments are applicable regarding the contacts with the extended family members. [ 28 ] The evidence shows that the best interest of the child require that she be entrusted to a foster family in Town A. The previous placement was a fail and created a lot of instability for the child. Moreover, the frequent contacts between the mother and the child are important to fulfill the child’s best interest.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2015, are still endangered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family in Town A , chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 32 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection plan to maintain the child entrusted to Ms. E and Mr. F; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober and without any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] Considering her consent, ORDERS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning her alcohol, drug, and personal issues; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother plan to attend Treatment Center A; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZE the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the mother’s presence at appointments with professionals and her level of involvement with the services provided; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the contacts remain suspended between the father and the child; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child, the mother and the extended family members be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to respect the modalities of contacts; [ 42 ] AUTHORIZES that the contacts be increased as long as those contacts are positive for the child; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child, the family, and the foster family; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the services of an external educator be provided to the child, her mother and her foster family on a regular basis for the duration of the measures, to support the foster parents adequately and to avoid them to give up; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 20, 2021