2017 QCCQ 20116, 2017 QCCQ 20116

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710326 2017 QCCQ 20116 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000106-163 DATE: October 25, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2015 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend a judgment rendered on August 2, 2016, entrusting the child to an institution operating a hospital or a local community service centre for a period of one year.

At that time, the child was diagnosed with meningitis and the prognosis for the future was very poor. [ 2 ] To this day, the child has been assessed by many professionals and is currently entrusted to A Home in City A. [ 3 ] The father, who is present, is represented by Mtre. Yan Massé. The mother is represented by Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub and Mtre. Michel Grenier acts on behalf of the child. Mtre. Camille Champeval represents the applicant. [ 4 ] Almost all of the allegations of the petition are admitted by the mother.

As for the father, since he was absent from his child’s life for many months, he is not aware of many of the allegations. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that on November 7, 2016, the child was discharged from Marie-Enfant Hospital and he was admitted to the “A” program located in City B, where he remained until the end of March. The mother was also admitted to this program from December 28, 2016 to January 9, 2017. It appears that she did not participate well with this program. She finally left.

At the end of March, the child was admitted in a City A institution, [A Home], where he receives intense care as well as social, medical, and specialized services as shown by the reports filed in evidence. [ 6 ] Due to his condition, the child has to take medication on a daily basis. He presents a level of development similar to an eight- month-old child. [ 7 ] Since he has been living at A Home, the parents never visited him.

In fact, the father last saw the child during the fall of 2016. [ 8 ] The father admits that he still struggles with alcohol consumption from time to time. [ 9 ] As for the mother, she has not seen her child for approximately six months. She requested visits, but has never followed through with her request and cancelled the visits.

When the Social Worker asked her why she didn’t visit her child, she stated that she was busy with work. [ 10 ] The mother states that she is now sober after having done the A Brigade this summer. [ 11 ] At this point, the child’s needs still have to be assessed and more time is needed to establish an adapted long-term plan for him.

[ 12 ] At the hearing, both parents claim that they would like to visit their child and be part of his life. As actions speak louder than words, they will have to meet with the Social Worker on a regular basis (at least three consecutive times) before visits with the child can be scheduled. They have to realize that they cannot appear and disappear from their son’s life without impact on him. The Court was clear with them: if they really want to be involved, they will have to demonstrate regularity and the capacity to learn how to take care of the child on a daily and permanent basis.

If not, it will also be a responsible act of parental authority to withdraw from the child’s life. They both have to fully collaborate with a social follow-up and definitely resolve their problem with alcohol and intoxicating substances. [ 13 ] The mother was assessed by Mr. Pierre Barrette, Psychologist, in September 2016. At that time, the psychologist recommended the placement of the child and the mother in a resource or a special foster home to help the mother develop appropriate parental skills and to receive support in order to develop her autonomy and maturity.

It is written [1] : “If Abigail doesn’t progress in the next 12 months, a long time placement will have to be considered, if the placement of the child with his father is not an option.” [ 14 ] Twelve months have elapsed since then and the mother did not pursue her stay with her child when she was allowed to do so. A second chance is given to her, but it must be said that it is her last one. [ 15 ] As for the father, he is mostly a stranger to his son right now. For X, his psychological parents are the adults who are providing him response to his needs.

If he wants to be a real father for the child, he will have to commit himself not only to the social follow-up, but also to learn how to take care of a child with the needs X presents. [ 16 ] Both parents challenge the fact that the Director of Youth Protection asks that the attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from them and that the Director be invested with the exercise of these attributes. [ 17 ] For the time being, both parents can be reached: it is still possible for a Social Worker to try to obtain their authorization.

To be sure, both parents will have to report themselves every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection.

If they fail to do so, the Director of Youth Protection will be invested with the parental authority in order to give consents to the health care and social services needed by the child. [ 18 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] REVIEWS the previous Court orders; [ 21 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X are endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of X at A Home in City A for a period of one year; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child receive all heath care, health and social services required by his situation; [ 24 ] ORDERS the parents to report themselves to the Director of Youth Protection every two weeks; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection try to reach the parents in order to obtain their consent for healthcare, health and social services as long as the parents report themselves every two weeks, and if not, WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and DECLARES that the Director of Youth Protection will be invested with the capacity to give these authorizations in the best interest of the child; [ 26 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the parents and the child until the parents meet with the Youth Protection Worker on three consecutive occasions in order to confirm their commitment to their child.

After these three meetings, the contacts will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 27 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that financial help be provided to the parents in order for them to be able to visit the child if they are committed to being in the life of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES any service providers working with the child or the parents to share information with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection A Services for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DYP, A Lawyer for the applicant

Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the child Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Lawyer for the mother Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 6, 2017