2011 QCCQ 8068, 2011 QCCQ 8068

Protection de la jeunesse — 112104 2011 QCCQ 8068 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001259-107 DATE: April 8, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, C.Y.P.C. working in town A, district A, Québec Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in town A, district A, Quebec Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in town A, district A, Quebec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1 and 2) and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review and extension of the decision rendered on March 16, 2010 concerning X, born on […], 2009. [ 2 ] Both parents are present and represented. The child is also represented. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The parties do not agree on the extension of the decision.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The evidence consists of the social report, the testimonies of the parents and the social worker. Also in evidence, a few admissions in relation with the allegations of the demand. [ 5 ] On March 16, 2010, the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger.

Considering the evidence tendered at the time, more particularly the personal and conjugal situation of the parents, the Court recommended that a life plan for the child be put in place after a period of three (3) months, should no indication of significant parental progress be noted. [ 6 ] Today, the Director of Youth Protection demands nearly a year after the initial decision, a foster care measure for a period of eight (8) months, in order to prepare a life project for the child. The evidence tendered demonstrates that the delay is related to two different issues.

The first one concerns the position of the foster care mother, sister of the father. During the month of March 2010, the

child suffered from asthma and required medical attention that left the foster mother overwhelmed. Consequently, she was not as affirmative as to her wish to receive the child on a permanent basis. Afterwards, she reassessed her position and maintained that she was available and interested. [ 7 ] Secondly, it was impossible for the Court to proceed to the hearing due to weather conditions that made it impossible to hold hearings in town B. Must also be added the lack of time afterwards due to the volume of cases.

The parties agreed to maintain the child with the aunt until the hearing on March 1, 2011. [ 8 ] The father's wish is that the child be reintegrated with the mother. As for himself, he did not, since March 16, 2010, collaborate with social services. Furthermore, he did not show any significant interest, in seeing the child. [ 9 ] The evidence does not convince the Court that the father is an interested parent.

As for the mother, the situation is different but not to a point where she can be considered as capable, ready and interested on a permanent basis. [ 10 ] She has had contacts with the child on two or three occasions and has presented herself at social services a few times. She states that she consumes less alcohol and drugs than before. She lives with her parents and is seeking a job. [ 11 ] The parents do not live together but they are still involved in a relationship, seeing each other on a regular basis. The father still consumes drugs.

In November 2010, police intervention was necessary: the father was assaulting the mother. Instability still colors the personal and conjugal relation of the parents. [ 12 ] The evidence convinces the Court that, since the initial decision rendered on March 16, 2010, the parents made no significant progress.

The mother has come forward on some issues but the steps accomplished are minimal and insufficient to infer a reversal of the situation that brought the withdrawal of the child from the family environment. [ 13 ] The child who will reach the age of 2, on March 7, 2011, has been living with his aunt since the end of July, 2009. Prior to the aunt receiving the child, the maternal grandparents had been acting as the caregivers. Due to tension between the families, the child was removed from their care and transferred to another family.

Consequently, the child has been fostered for the last 22 months. [ 14 ] The evidence does not convince the Court that the length recommended by the Director of Youth Protection respects the interest of the child. A shorter period, as stated by the child's lawyer, seems more appropriate considering the testimony of the social worker, according to whom, the position of the aunt is quite clear as to the future of the child with her. Must also be outlined the delays in

section 91.1 of the Law that have expired. [ 15 ] It is in the interest of the child and the respect of his rights, that the life plan, recommended since March 16, 2010, be enforced. [ 16 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child, in danger; [ 19 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on March 16, 2010; [ 20 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) the foster care of the child in a foster family, until June 14, 2011;

b) that a person working for an establishment or organism provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, the parents and the aunt (foster care); [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES and MAINTAINS the personal relations between the parents and the child; [ 22 ] ORDERS that access and visitation rights between the parents and the child be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that a life project for the child be prepared at the latest for June 14, 2011; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Lawyer for the children

Me Stéphanie Lachance Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer of the Father Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer of the mother Date of hearing: March 1, 2011