2015 QCCQ 9260, 2015 QCCQ 9260

Protection de la jeunesse — 15946 2015 QCCQ 9260 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 650-41-002271-126 DATE: May, 26 th 2015 BY JUDGE RICHARD CÔTÉ, J. C.Q. In the situation of : X Born on [...] [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , authorized person for the Director of youth protection, district A Petitioner and A and B Parents JUDGMENT 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 ] On January 21 st 2015, judge Michel Parent declared the security and development of X to be in danger and ordered that the child be entrusted to his parents with a follow-up for a period of twelve (12) months. [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection submits a motion for review and extension for the following reasons : 2- On January 21 st 2015, the Director of youth protection planned to entrust the child to his father, but he was not present at Court and we do not have any news from him since; 3- The mother came back in City A on the first week of February 2015 to take full responsibility of her son after more than six months in therapy; 4- In February 2015, the mother relapse in her problems of addiction and she told us that she had difficulties to take care of her three (3) children; 5- On February 23 rd 2015, the mother made a suicidal attempt and she was hospitalized for some days in City B ; 6- The mother entrusted the child to Mrs.

C during she was hospitalized but she never came back in City A ; 7- On Mid-March 2015, the mother told us that she cannot take care of the child for the moment and she wanted him to be entrusted to Mrs. C for a while; 8- After the assessment of the situation, it appears that the security or the development of the child still being in danger because of the child is in serious risk to be neglect in reason of : 1) Substance abuse by the parents; 2) Parents are unstable; 3) Unresolved history of neglect for the parents; 4) Mother mental health problems;

[ 3 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to Mrs. C for a period of twelve (12) months. [ 4 ] The mother is absent, but the Court is informed by counsel for the Director of youth protection that the mother told her social worker that she agrees upon the measures recommended by the Director of youth protection. [ 5 ] The father is present during the hearing, and he also agrees with the proposed measures. [ 6 ] According to the evidence, since the January court decision, the situation of the mother has deteriorated.

Furthermore, while she was in therapy in City C , the father was supposed to take care of his child but at the end of January, the mother was told that he started to consume alcohol and drugs. The child was then removed from his father’s custody and entrusted to Mrs. C under provisional measures. [ 7 ] In February, the child was returned to his mother’s care but a few weeks later, the mother was taken into the hospital following a suicide attempt. She decided to entrust her child to Mrs. C who is willing to take care of X as long as necessary. In her written report, Mrs. [Social Worker 2] mentions : Mrs.

C offers a good collaboration with our services and keeps us informed on the child’s situation. She respects the current rhythm of the parents. She allows contacts between the child and the parents and favors a reintegration in the parental environment. She is very implicated in the child’s situation; she ensures that the contacts between X and his parents are positive by supervising them.

She remains available to care for the child as long as it is necessary. [ 8 ] The mother’s situation remains fragile, and she needs support to stabilize her personal situation to regain her capacity to take care of her child. [ 9 ] The father has to collaborate with the youth protection services and demonstrate that he wants to change his personal situation and rebuild his relationship with his son. [ 10 ] The Court concludes that the security and the development of the child remain in danger because he was exposed to domestic violence and a serious risk of neglect. [ 11 ] The child will be entrusted to Mrs.

C . [ 12 ] The Director of youth protection also asks the Court to take note of the assessment of Mrs. C as a proximity foster family and order that from the day she is accredited as such, that the child be entrusted to a foster family. [ 13 ] With respect for the contrary opinion, the Court cannot make such an order. Although probable, the accreditation of Mrs. C is still hypothetical. [ 14 ] The application is premature. The request of the Director can be examined only when the assessment is completed, and official accreditation is given.

THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X is in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child remains entrusted to the care of Mrs.

C until 26 th May 2016; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by agreement between the parties; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of youth protection and inform the youth workers of the steps they have taken to address their respective situations and of any change of address or telephone number; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the Director is authorized to obtain and share information with the professionals working with the family; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; July, 6 th 2015 __________________________________ RICHARD CÔTÉ, J.C.Q.

Me Lyne Monger Lawyer of Director of youth protection Me Claire Levesque Lawyer of the youth Date of hearing: May, 26 th 2015