2012 QCCQ 18366, 2012 QCCQ 18366

Protection de la jeunesse — 127665 2012 QCCQ 18366 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001111-084 DATE: November 16, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in town A Applicant and X, born on […], 2008 Child and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking the Court to review a decision rendered on October 12, 2011, by Honourable Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q. where, among others, the foster placement of the child X was ordered for a period of eight months. [ 2 ] Through the current motion, the main conclusion sought is the placement of the child till majority. [ 3 ] At the hearing, all the parties are present and represented; the parents clearly and simply indicate that they object to the measure sought. [ 4 ] After presenting the events that have led to the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection and the Court, it appears particularly relevant to dwell on some of the mentions made by Honourable Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q., in the last judgment that was rendered. [ 5 ] X is a young A girl almost four and a half years old. [ 6 ] The first legal intervention on her behalf was made shortly after her birth.

Then Honourable Renée Lemoine, J.C.Q. had ordered a foster placement as a provisional measure. [ 7 ] On January 20, 2009, the same judge concluded that the security and development of the child were endangered and ordered another foster placement for a period of six months. [ 8 ] The decision was based on the fact that the parents were not able then to provide adequate care for the child due to a serious alcohol problem. [ 9 ] On July 16, 2009, Honourable Claude Bigué, J.C.Q., reviewed the previous decision and, in line with the common suggestion of the parties, entrusted the child to her parents, provided that they stay at the child’s grandparents. [ 10 ] The judge noted in writing, as of September 4, 2009, the reasons for allowing the measure, despite the fact that neither parent had significantly improved their personal circumstances. [ 11 ] At the time, he mentioned again what Judge Lemoine had previously indicated, that the parents must acknowledge their problem and ask for support in order to solve it. [ 12 ] However, the parents did not take the opportunity to modify their drinking behaviour.

This led to another provisional measure on July 15, 2010, where the child had to be again entrusted to a foster family.

[ 13 ] On the following October 13, Honourable Louis Grégoire, J.C.Q. rendered judgment, whereby a six-month placement of the child was ordered. Once again, the reasons for the decision were essentially based on the alcohol and violence problems the parents were facing and on the fact that no significant improvement had been made so far. [ 14 ] At the time, the judge cautioned the parents that, if they did not get seriously involved in a healing process on their various problems, the Director of Youth “will work on a life plan”.

And so, he ordered the parents to seek help for their alcohol consumption and violence problems. [ 15 ] The legal measure remained until April 19, 2011, where Judge Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q., was seized of a motion for review based, once again, on the same alcohol and violence problems. [ 16 ] When ordering the placement of X for six months, Madam Justice stressed that this period of time was provided to allow for a long-term project to be assessed for the child. [ 17 ] The legal measure was effective up to October 12, 2011, where Judge Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q,. reviewed her own decision and ordered a placement for an eight-month period this time. [ 18 ] In addition to recognizing that the parents’ situation had not improved and that their collaboration was inappropriate, she indicated that, at the hearing, the mother admitted being aware that her child would remain in a foster family till majority if she did not solve her problem.

In the Judge’s opinion, the parents understood then that it was their last chance to show that they were able to change in order to regain custody of their daughter. [ 19 ] In other respects, the Judge wondered why the child had been fostered in over ten different foster homes, a fact that can only be highly harmful to her.

It appeared then critical to quickly correct the situation. [ 20 ] Furthermore, the Court considered that a life plan would be set out, if the parents did not bring about satisfactory changes. [ 21 ] The numerous past legal measures now lead to the current motion for review, whereby the applicant is asking for a placement till majority. [ 22 ] Based on the case as a whole and from the evidence heard, the Court essentially notes the following. [ 23 ] As to the father, who has been regularly detained in the past years for violent offences, he is presently residing in a half-way house in Town B. [ 24 ] He says that he plans to find a job and that he has been sober for two months now. [ 25 ] Although he has seen his daughter in the last three or four months, he is not sure as to whether he would want to have her with him. [ 26 ] As he said it himself: “I will have first to fix my life”. [ 27 ] As to the mother, she says that she has never wanted in the past to go to whatever treatment to solve the problems she now acknowledges. [ 28 ] However, she sees it differently now and intends to go to treatment in the future. [ 29 ] She has not taken any concrete steps so far though, except for attending AA meetings at Centre de détention A. [ 30 ] Now the applicant, [intervenante 1], reports to the Court that, in his opinion, the mother’s situation has not actually changed. [ 31 ] As to the child, she is now in a stable family and seems to be integrating well and developing in an appropriate way. [ 32 ] The family would be able, as he sees it, to provide X with an environment where she can feel at home and enjoy stability. [ 33 ] As a matter of fact, Mr.

C, to whom she has been entrusted, mentions in Court that, up to now, the girl has adapted well to her new family and that she is very positively making her way. [ 34 ] He wishes to keep assuming custody for the child while being open to have the parents involved in their child’s life. [ 35 ] It appears essential to the Court that, in the child’s best interest, the solution brought about ensures overall stability for her. [ 36 ] It could not be afforded, in the circumstances, to break off the ties she seems to be now creating with her foster parents and the other children living in the same family without having reasonable guarantee that the mother could provide her with acceptable living conditions. [ 37 ] Unfortunately, the Court considers that the evidence does not tend to show that such an outcome is realistic in the foreseeable future. [ 38 ] Although the parents were cautioned many times over the years and expressed good intentions at the hearing, it seems that they have not yet engaged in concrete ways to regain control over their life and solve once and for all the problems they are facing. [ 39 ] Without doubting the sincerity of the parents’ wishes, we can no longer subject the child’s stability to these intentions, when considering the history of the case.

[ 40 ] If indeed they were to take steps leading to positive outcomes, they will always be entitled to ask for the review of the current decision. [ 41 ] However, in the present circumstances and in the best interest of X, it is suitable to order her placement until majority. [ 42 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 44 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger; [ 45 ] REVIEWS the Court order rendered on October 12, 2011; [ 46 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster family of Mrs. and Mr.

D and C until she reaches the age of majority; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the terms and conditions; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign any medical, educational or travelling authorizations for the welfare of the child; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 50 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to facilitate all the contacts and visits of the child with the parents; [ 51 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the child Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 25, 2012