2015 QCCQ 8633, 2015 QCCQ 8633

Protection de la jeunesse — 15395 2015 QCCQ 8633 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse » N° : 525-41-026243-121 DATE : 03 février 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE LUCIE GODIN ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de: X Né le […] 2011 Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse Requérante -et- A Mère mise en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents.

Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.p.j.). [ 1 ] À la demande et du consentement de toutes les parties, le Tribunal procède à une enquête commune dans la situation des enfants Y et X. [ 2 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en prolongation de l'ordonnance rendue le 8 novembre 2013 dans laquelle il ordonnait l'hébergement de l'enfant en famille d'accueil pour une période d'une année et ordonnait certaines autres mesures visant à corriger la situation. [ 3 ] La requérante, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse (DPJ), allègue que la situation de l'enfant exige une prolongation d'ordonnance pour certains motifs liés aux besoins de l'enfant et à l'incapacité de la mère d'assumer ses responsabilités parentales sur une base quotidienne. [ 4 ] En conséquence, la requérante recommande au Tribunal d'ordonner la poursuite de l'hébergement de l'enfant en famille d'accueil prenant acte que la DPJ entend présenter un plan de vie à l'enfant durant cette période. [ 5 ] La mère admet tous les faits allégués dans la requête dont elle a connaissance et exprime comprendre le sens de cette ordonnance et y consentir. [ 6 ] Le procureur des enfants exprime être en accord avec les recommandations de la DPJ au nom de l'enfant. [ 7 ] Tenant compte des admissions formulées par la mère et la preuve documentaire, le Tribunal conclut que la situation de l'enfant exige une prolongation d'ordonnance pour les motifs allégués. [ 8 ] Le Tribunal retient les éléments suivants : [ 9 ] The child and his half-brother remained in the same foster family where he is progressing and all his particular health needs are met. [ 10 ] The foster parents remain committed to the long-term care of the child, including adopting the child in the event that the child be declared eligible for adoption. [ 11 ] Although the mother has made gains with the support of [Center A], she has acknowledged that she is not able to care for the child and his sibling; [ 12 ] The mother has identified that under the current circumstances, the child's needs and best interest would best be met by remaining with his current caretakers on a permanent basis. [ 13 ] The mother ceased visiting the child in recent months.

Mesures [ 14 ] Dans un rapport déposé sous D-1, [intervenant 1], personne autorisée par la DPJ, analyse ainsi la situation : "In September 2012, a parental capacity assessment was completed, by Dr. Cloutier, on Ms. A which in the end stated: "Ms. A is a young mother of 23 years old who presents as a well meaning, caring mother, who loves her children.

However, she displays important limits regarding her parenting capacities, such as poor ability to find solutions to difficulties, poor ability to cope with changer, poor ability to offer stimulation adequate for the age of the child, poor ability to recognize emotions of the child and poor ability to take responsibility and show insight into problems. Denial of problems, little insight-poor awareness of problems and poor intellectual capacities explain why she is not able to fulfill her parenting role." It was clear in Dr. Cloutier's report that Ms.

A was limited in many areas that would affect her parenting abilities and the ability to care for X and Y. It must be said that Ms. A has been receiving intensive services from [Center A] in regards to her youngest son, Z, and that Ms. A has made many improvements in her own self-care and parenting abilities. This being said, custody of her youngest son Z is being considered to return to Ms. A and Mr. B; however, in an untraditional service that is being offered by [Center A]. Ms. A and her partner could eventually care for Z within a [Center A] residence where there is always 24 hour assistance if needed.

The possibility of her youngest son returning to her care is of course dependent on her own efforts, insight and the positive changes that she is making; however, it is also because Z's father, Mr. B is completely involved and the involvement of [Center A] services that is making the situation more plausible. It is also very clear that as much as [Center A] is advocating for Ms. A, they also agree that Ms. A would be unable to care for all three of her children, especially X who has many therapeutic and medical needs.

This being said, the security and development of X and Y continue to be compromised, as they will not be able to return to the care of their mother, Ms. A. Ms. A continues to be a well meaning, caring mother who loves X and Y but has also developed the insight to recognize that she is unable to care for X and Y and that it is in their best interest to remain with their current foster parents. Ms. A's involvement with X and Y is minimal as she does not go to all medical/therapeutic appointments when informed, she does not call to inquire on how they are doing and provides no financial contribution. Ms.

A attended visits with X and Y until May 2014, but the lack of interaction and stimulation still remains a concern. The attachment between Ms. A and X is very low and Ms. A has noticed this herself. The attachment between Ms. A and Y was more pronounced that with X; however, it was displayed in random bursts of affection from Y towards Ms. A. This has contributed to Ms. A's engagement in the visits, as she becomes discouraged and then focuses on the fact that she knows that she can not care for X and Y. It has been explained to Ms.

A that is the DYP's opinion that the best option for X and Y is to go forth and have the boys declared adoptable. X and Y have developed healthy attachments to their foster parents and continue to thrive in their care. The foster parents provide them with all their basic needs and more. Ms. A sees the benefits for X and Y being adopted but would like to form a rapport with the foster parents to have occasional contacts especially if her youngest son returns to her care; as she would want to encourage some sibling contact. Ms.

A also understands that if/when the boys are adopted; such occasional contacts are not guaranteed and would be left up to the current foster parents. She has been informed in Quebec there is no open adoption. Ms. A asked the foster parents about these occasional contacts and felt comfortable with the responses. X and Y have been in placement beyond the maximum duration of placement for children under the permanency planning protocol.

Considering their age, their vulnerabilities and their needs, the rationale for ongoing DYP involvement would be to finalize the long-term plan for both boys, with the plan that they be declared adoptable. Ms.

A has expressed that she is agreement with the plan for X and Y to be adopted in the care of their current foster parents. [1] " [ 15 ] L'intervenante sociale précise que le but et les objectifs de ce plan d'intervention est de finaliser un plan de vie spécifique d'adoption pour X et Y De plus, par ce plan, la requérante vise à ce que chacun des enfants reçoive tous les soins et services de santé requis par son état. [ 16 ] L'intervenante précise la réaction de la mère : "Ms. A is in agreement that she cannot care for X and Y and that they are receiving everything they need from their current foster parents. Ms.

A believes that X and Y are happy where they are and recognizes the attachment they have with their foster parents. Ms. A struggles with the idea of never seeing X and Y again and that they will not have contact with their younger brother, Z; however, after meeting with the foster parents, Ms.

A feels that adoption is a better choice for the well-being of X and Y. [2] " [ 17 ] TENANT COMPTE du consentement d la mère; [ 18 ] TENANT COMPTE des besoins des enfants; [ 19 ] TENANT COMPTE de la capacité de la famille d'accueil à y répondre; [ 20 ] TENANT COMPTE du fait que la mère a été clairement informée du plan d'intervention de la DPJ et des objectifs visés; [ 21 ] LE TRIBUNAL [ 22 ] CONCLUT que les recommandations de la requérante sont dans l'intérêt de l'enfant; [ 23 ] THEREFORE , [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on November 8, 2013;

[ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the DYP will establish a permanent plan for the child during this period; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the DYP intends to maintain the child in his current foster family; [ 29 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the mother and the child; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to receive information from the treating professionals involved in the child's and mother's follow-up; [ 31 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother some attributes of the parental authority concerning the ability to sign all consents and therefore, AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign all consents concerning the child's needs; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that mother receive the support of the [Center A] network; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q.

Me Isabelle Loranger Procureur de la DPJ Me Maria Choquette Stuart Procureur de l’enfant Me Paul Ménard Procureur de la mère Date d’audience : 03 février 2015 LG/lf