2022 QCCQ 13602, 2022 QCCQ 13602

Protection de la jeunesse — 228313 2022 QCCQ 13602 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 760-41-006736-212 DATE: November 22, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2021 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant -and- A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Article 95 (1) & (2) 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The child is the subject of protective measures since his birth in reason of a serious risk of neglect stemming from his father’s difficulties in decoding and responding to his needs on a daily basis. As of two days old, the child resides in alternative environments (aunt, foster family). [ 2 ] Two successive protection orders are rendered.

On February 14, 2022, the Court prolongs the protection order for 6 months, notably maintaining the child’s placement in foster care with supervised access to his father.

This order remains in force. [ 3 ] While submitting that the father is able to assume his parental responsibilities, the Director of Youth Protection submits that the child’s reactions surrounding extended contacts with his father justifies a three-month interim order. [ 4 ] Accepting the continuation of services and assistance, the father considers that his son’s reintegration to his care must be engaged and asks that a specific progression and timeframe be put in place.

The child’s attorney, operating under a legal mandate, subscribes to the father’s position. [ 5 ] The contentious issues are the following: • Is it premature to conclude to final measures considering the child’s reactions in his foster family? • If not, does the evidence demonstrate that the child should remain in foster care? • Whether he remains in foster care or returns to his parental environment, what are the best conditions to put in place to respect the objectives of the law? [ 6 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court endorses the father’s position and orders that the child be progressively integrated in his environment over the next months, with a return to his care as of January 21, 2023, at the latest.

Supervision of the contacts is immediately lifted. The other measures, uncontested, are put in place for one year. Context [ 7 ] In February 2022, the Director transfers the child to his present foster family. [ 8 ] He is developing positively and meeting his developmental targets. He is attached to his caregivers. [ 9 ] He benefits from regular contacts with his father and this, on a weekly basis. Initially these contacts occur minimally twice a

week for two hours, under supervision. The father shows devotion to his son and attends all contacts. [ 10 ] The child is observed to be generally comfortable and secure in his father’s presence, and no outstanding issues are observed during their contacts. Overall, a positive relationship exists between them. [ 11 ] Although the father still shows resistance as to the reasons justifying the Director’s involvement, he fully invests himself in the rehabilitation process.

He participates and engages various services in regard to his personal challenges and parental capacities. [ 12 ] A homebound educator accompanies the father since January 2022. The father is involved in the follow-up and learns to better decode his son’s needs. Progressively, he becomes more confident and capable as to his parental responsibilities. He rigorously applies the educator’s advice and is able to adequately adjust and respond to any issues presented by his young son. [ 13 ] The father remains stable in his personal life. Diagnosed with ADHD, he continues to take his medication.

His anxiety, while still present, is better recognized and controlled. [ 14 ] As well as the services in place, the father benefits from the support of his sister, who resides in the same building. [ 15 ] The father works mostly from home and his availability for his parental responsibilities is not an issue. He has found a daycare facility for X. [ 16 ] The Director concludes to the following as concerns the father’s parental abilities: Thus, services continue to be required to ensure that the father develops the required knowledge and skills to meet his child’s evolving needs. Our follow-up found that when Mr.

A is invested and open to welcoming our interventions, he can become a more competent caregiver. However, without appropriate support, the gap between the father’s knowledge and X’s needs can widen to the point of impacting the consistency and quality of the care given to X. Currently, the father is demonstrating that he is taking all necessary steps to avoid this gap. He is accepting services and going beyond our recommendations to improve his parenting skills. We feel that Mr.

A is very sensitive to his child’s needs and he gives us the impression that he will be able to mobilize himself in the long term, to offer a consistent response. (Court Report, page 9) [ 17 ] As of September 2022, the child becomes increasingly reactive in his foster environment.

The evidence demonstrates that he can have wake up nights, request the proximity of his foster parents, eat less and be generally less available. [ 18 ] Once contacts are increased in view of working towards the objective of his reinsertion, these reactions, although always in the foster environment, intensify. [ 19 ] The Director, concerned that the rhythm of contacts is affecting the child’s equilibrium, recommends that the frequency and duration of contacts be reviewed. The father accepts to slow down this process in view of the Director’s recommendations to this effect.

Analysis and decision [ 20 ] Is it premature to conclude to final measures considering the child’s reactions in his foster family? [ 21 ] The Director, preoccupied by the child’s reactions in his foster environment, considers that such justifies that the reintegration process be adjusted or even suspended, for an additional delay in order to better evaluate of the child’s needs. [ 22 ] In fact, the Director’s position puts in question the viability of reintegration. [ 23 ] Although the child certainly demonstrates a certain distress in his foster family, the consistent observations demonstrate a positive and affectionate bond with his father.

Furthermore, the evidence clearly establishes that the father’s rehabilitation is sufficient for him to assume his full parental role, with the continued accompaniment of the Director. [ 24 ] How then to interpret this situation within the context of the evaluation of the child’s best interests? [ 25 ] None of the parties, nor the Court, is able to exactly establish the reasons giving way to these reactions, but the following elements demonstrate the probability that such is linked to the dynamic in place. [ 26 ] Firstly, the child is attached to his primary caregivers.

The period of temporary placement provided by law – in this case one year – provides that the child be taken care of in a secure and appropriate environment.

That the child makes attachments, especially in the case of an infant, is an ingrained and expected result of this placement. [ 27 ] The reality of the child’s placement and his attachment to his foster family, although a pertinent factor in the Court’s appreciation, cannot systematically override the objective of his return to his family environment once the situation of endangerment is resolved or evolves to the point where placement is no longer necessary. [ 28 ] The reintegration process can invariably cause a process of detachment and insecurity for a young child not having the ability to understand and properly process the situation. [ 29 ] Consequently, although the child shows distress in his foster family, with a tenuous linkage to the contacts, the Director fails to prove that such is related to an insecure relationship with his father or is a probative factor justifying another period of evaluation. [ 30 ] The Court having sufficient elements to evaluate his needs and best interests, a final order is in the child’s best interests. [ 31 ] If not, does the evidence demonstrate that the child should remain in foster care?

[ 32 ] The father is able to adequately assume his parental role, a security net is in place to accompany him, and he offers a safe home environment.

Although the evidence shows that services remain necessary, this rehabilitation is sufficient to conclude that a renewed long-term placement in foster care is no longer necessary in the child’s interests. [ 33 ] Whether he remains in foster care of returns to his parental environment, what are the best conditions to put in place to respect the objectives of the law? [ 34 ] The child’s interests dictate a concerted move forward towards his father’s care, with a short period of progression in view of attenuating the detachment from his foster family and accompanying the father towards assuming his parental role on a full-time basis. [ 35 ] The Court refers to the parties for the specific progression, ordering that, at the latest, the child reintegrate his father’s environment as of January 21, 2023. [ 36 ] The other measures being uncontested and the reflection of the evidence, the Court endorses them.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the application; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 39 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 14, 2022; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by Director of Youth Protection A until January 21 st 2023; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a progressive reintegration commence as of today in his father’s environment; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his father as of January 21 st , 2023; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the father reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures he applies in his own regard or his child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 44 ] ORDERS that father takes an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 46 ] ALL THESES MEASURES, save for the placement order, for one year; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Vanessa Côté Attorney for the Applicant Me Samantha Roy Attorney for the father Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 22, 2022