2017 QCCQ 5764, 2017 QCCQ 5764

Protection de la jeunesse — 172469 2017 QCCQ 5764 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-027203-132 Date: January 12, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2007 A , the mother Applicant -and- B , the father -and- [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Respondents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 12, 2017, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision of an order rendered by the honourable Lucille Beauchemin, on December 17, 2014, whereby the now nine year-old child, X , was entrusted to a foster family with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of three years. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision dated September 16, 2016, are as follows: 3. The mother has complied with all the orders of Honorable Lucille Beauchemin:

a) all her random drug and or alcohol test were negative;

b) she completed a program of group psychotherapy called “Eve” for a duration of 10 weeks, from October 12 2015 to December 15, 2015;

c) she received individual psychotherapy with Hélène Picard at the CLSC of Lachine from February 2015 to November 2015;

d) the child X completed a therapy with the psychotherapist M. Mark Mazer at the CLSC of Lachine;

e) she collaborated with transparency with the social follow-up;

f) she received therapy for conjugal violence; 4. Until the said hearing date of the Motion, it is necessary and urgent that the child be entrusted to mother’s care by Court order under provisional measures for the following reasons:

a) the child is ready to reintegrate mother’s care home, having spent significant amount of quality time with her, with extended visits including pedalogical days, two weeks in July and two weeks in August, the week of the school break, and every second week – end from Friday to Sunday;

b) there was never an unfortunate event that happened while the child was under the mother’s care;

c) the child X is thriving while under mother’s care during visits;

d) it is important for the child to be registered and to attend the school in mother’s district as soon as possible;

e) although the foster family of C took good care of the child, X very much wants to live home with her mother (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The motion for provisional measures was granted on September 27, 2016 and the child was thereby entrusted to her mother with the consent of all parties. [ 5 ] The hearing of the motion for revision was set before the undersigned on January 12, 2017.

The mother then sought to have the child remain entrusted to her care, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until September 1, 2017. [ 6 ] Me Loranger, for the Director of Youth Protection, admitted all the alleged facts and agreed to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The father, assisted by Me Tremblay, also admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] Me DuSablon, represented the child and also consented to the measures on her behalf. [ 9 ] The mother filed Exhibit M-5 and M-6 as evidence: M-5: Letter from CLSC Dorval-Lachine, signed by Mark Mazer, dated September 14, 2016; M-6: Letter from CIUSS A, signed by Hélène Picard, dated February 5, 2016. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibit D-12 as evidence: D-12: Court Report, signed by [Social Worker 1], dated December 16, 2016. [ 11 ] In

summary, the facts alleged in support of the motion are admitted and all parties agree that the mother’s sustained efforts have allowed her to effectively resume the care of her child, to her child’s greatest benefit. [ 12 ] Since the provisional entrustment to her mother’s care: This delegate has observed X to be doing very well in her mother’s care. She excels in school having marks of 100% in many subjects.

X presents as being happy and she has not given this delegate any reasons to believe that she is at risk. [2] [ 13 ] She also continues to see her father regularly without any incident: Both parents seem to have made gains in that there have been no further reports of conjugal violence or drug use in front of X. […] Both parents appeared to have gained a lot of insight and seem to be able to understand the effect of their negative behavior on their daughter. […] As per the court order, while X was in placement, she was visiting her parents every weekend alternating between her mother and her father.

The visits always seemed to be going well. X reported that she enjoyed spending time with her mother and with her father. […] Since X has been entrusted to her mother, Mr. B continues to see her every other weekend. [3] [ 14 ] The mother, however, is still under probation: Ms. A is under probation in relation to shoplifting events until May 24, 2017. Ms. A has to report back to her probation agent regularly and also has to work with a community worker who can provide support when and if needed. The probation officer, Ms. Natalie Buissiere, stated to this case worker that Ms.

A is cooperative with her. [4] [ 15 ] The mother appears to be respecting the probation order and she must continue to make every effort to ensure that her daughter’s stability is not at risk. [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING

MEASURES: [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother; [ 20 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her father be determined by agreement between the parties; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] THE WHOLE until September 1, 2017. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F.

Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Claudine DuSablon Attorney for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Me Gisèle Tremblay Attorney for the father TD/vl