2020 QCCQ 13412, 2020 QCCQ 13412

Protection de la jeunesse — 209345 2020 QCCQ 13412 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002262-191 DATE: March 23, 2020 (written judgment rendered on June 22, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED DECISION : The text of the original decision has been corrected on August 6, 2020.

The name of the father should be B instead of B. 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on January 31, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until January 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and recommends that the child be placed to her actual foster family until her majority. Position of the parties [ 3 ] Even if they were dully served the parents are absent, but the mother gave a mandate to Me Laoun to represent her and the father gave a mandate to Me Lucas.

The parents agree with the placement until the majority, but the mother asks contacts at least every two weeks if her situation allows it. [ 4 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Sinnett. On her young client’s behalf, she submits to the Court that the situation remains endangered and the placement until her majority is in her best interest. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On January 31, 2019 , the Court was seized with X’s situation. She was one and a half month old.

The family was known from the DYP as the siblings of the child were already the object of a decision from the Youth Chamber, and entrusted to foster family until the majority. The parents have alcohol consumption issues. When the mother gave birth to X, the father was in detention. He was released at the beginning of January 2019. The mother gave the child to traditional adoption, but the papers were not completed properly and the child never registered to the Director of civil status. The adoptive mother gave back the child to the hospital because the mother drank during her pregnancy.

The parents planned to find a Cree adoptive family. The mother did not have a stable place to live since her house was burnt in 2018. The father is regularly violent towards her, and neither parent planned to quit drinking. The child was entrusted to a foster family in Town A, but the DYP planned to look for a foster family down South who already foster one sibling. The parents did not request visits with their daughter since her placement.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] , entrusted her to a foster family and ordered that she be properly registered to the Director of civil status. Also, in case of non-contact during the first six months the Court ordered the DYP to prepare a life plan for the child. [ 6 ] On January 23, 2020 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained to a foster family.

Facts [ 7 ] A few weeks after the last decision, when X was 2 months old, the foster family who already foster X’s siblings confirms their interest to foster X and the child was entrusted to them. [ 8 ] The parents would have appreciated that X be fostered by an Inuit foster family, but despite the many attempts to find one, it was not possible. Considering that X’s sister’s foster family accepted to have her also, the DYP considered that it was the best solution for her and stop the research. [ 9 ] The parents had one visit in August 2019, in Town B with the child. They spent all their money buying alcohol.

The DYP had to pay for their meals. The mother was not allowed to board on the plane for her scheduled return as she was too intoxicated. [ 10 ] Another visit occurred in Town A. The parents showed up to one visit on the three organized. [ 11 ] In the future, according to X’s development and the willingness of the parents, the DYP will organize contacts by different ways. [ 12 ] The foster family considers very important to maintain X in contact with her Inuit culture.

They bought books for children, they have relatives who also foster Inuit children (11 to 14 Inuit children in their entourage), they will attend some cultural activities organized down South and they will benefit from all opportunity to travel up North. [ 13 ] The foster mother confirms that the parents are always welcome to communicate with her to have news and to speak with their daughter, but unfortunately they do not often call. [ 14 ] According to the foster mother, X is developing very well and she does not have any concern regarding her development.

She receives services from the DYP in her region and when needed, she communicates with her family doctor. [ 15 ] The main issue is the fact that the foster family does not have the child’s birth certificate and doing so, they do not have the child’s medical card. The foster mother asked for it many times. [ 16 ] The DYP worker explains that they made an application for the birth certificate in February 2019, and receive it only in October 2019. They did not give it to the foster family when they came for a visit and they planned to give it to them in March when they would have come for the Court.

Considering the Court did not travel due to the Coronavirus, the DYP worker engages herself to send it by mail. [ 17 ] The Court notes that the birth certificate of the child is in the Court file. It was issued in February 2019, and filed on April 1, 2019, by the DYP’s lawyer. The DYP worker cannot explain why the DYP did not receive it before October 2019. [ 18 ] Also questioned about the medical card, the DYP worker confirms that it is the DYP’s responsibility to request it, confirms that it is not done yet and cannot explain why.

Analysis [ 19 ] X is now in foster family for more than one year and she is in the same foster family since she is 2 months old. [ 20 ] The parents recognize that their situation does not permit them to resume the care of their daughter today, nor in the future. [ 21 ] The child is developing well in her foster family. She lives with her biological sister and her biological cousin. She also developed very strong bonds with her foster parents. [ 22 ] The suggested measures fulfill the criteria imposed by the Law and the Court has no hesitation to grant the application.

X has chance to have found a loving and caring foster family who will be able to raise her, and to keep her in contact with her Inuit origin. [ 23 ] On another aspect, the Court has serious concerns regarding the follow-up done by the DYP about the child’s birth certificate. This certificate was issued more than one year ago and as for now, nothing was done. Even if it was received by the DYP last October, it was not provided to the foster parents when they went up North in January 2020.

As they cannot travel in March 2020, they are still waiting for it and the medical card is still not requested. [ 24 ] Fortunately, the doctor is very complaisant and X does not have medical issues. But even if she is in good health, it is her right to have the appropriate ID and not providing her with that is an encroachment of rights. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still endangered; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the foster family of Ms. C and Mr.

D until the age of majority; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the child attend a childcare establishment for as long as judged necessary;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to communicate to the Director of Youth Protection B all the information he could request including the child’s birth certificate and medical card urgently; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 36 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of youth protection or one of his representatives; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] The WHOLE until the age of majority on [...], 2036. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the father Date of hearing: March 23, 2020