2013 QCCQ 10523, 2013 QCCQ 10523

Protection de la jeunesse — 133380 2013 QCCQ 10523 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE […] DISTRICT [...] “Youth Division” No: 640-41-001343-109 DATE: August 1, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A, working in A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in City B, province of Québec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in City A, province of Québec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 95 ( par. 1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for revision under

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born[…], 2001. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child is present and represented.

The mother is absent but represented. [ 3 ] The applicant is requesting from the Court to revise the judgement rendered by the Honorable Judge Nancy McKenna on October 30, 2012 in which she implemented the measures mentioned in a draft agreement signed by the parties on October 30, 2012 according to which the child was entrusted in foster care for a period of six (6) months and other measures such as that the mother seeks help for alcohol consumption and her personal issues, that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and that the child attends school on a regular basis. [ 4 ] At the time of the Court hearing, the Director of Youth Protection was asked to stabilize X’s situation in order to present a life plan.

Since September 28, 2012, X was entrusted to an extended family member in B, Mrs. B. She considered, until recently, to have the child entrusted to her until his majority. Unfortunately, the child’s behaviour has changed in the household and Mrs. B is no longer offering to keep the child until his majority. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been implicated in this family since January 2010.

Presently, the child’s two younger sisters are placed in a foster family until their majority. [ 6 ] The child talks to his mother approximately 3 times a week, mostly by internet and sometimes by phone. [ 7 ] On January 14, 2013, the child was met by Dr. Lucie Nadeau, child psychiatrist; he was accompanied by the foster mother. The child mentioned to be very affected by the deaths that happened in his family. He was encouraged to address his grieving emotions and the foster mother accepted to support him with that. Dr.

Nadeau noticed a clear improvement in the child’s situation and will continue to follow up with him. The child also receives the support from a home educator, [social worker 2]. [ 8 ] The mother, in the last Court order, was asked to seek help for her alcohol consumption and her personal issues. After the hearing, the mother demanded to have meetings with the Director of Youth Protection every week at a precise day and date (every Thursdays at 16:30).

Unfortunately, she did not come to any of the scheduled appointments even if she was reminded by phone on many occasions. [ 9 ] On December 29, 2012, while the child was in City A to visit his mother, C Regional Police Force had to intervene because the mother and her 18-year-old daughter go into a fight. The mother was intoxicated at the time.

[ 10 ] The mother has admitted in the past that she has an alcohol problem and repeated her intention to go to a treatment. Finally, on February 26, 2013, she left for a 30-days treatment, at the A Pavilion. [ 11 ] Unfortunately, on April 29, 2013, the worker went to see the mother and found her intoxicated at the time.

On May 14, 2013, the mother was found passed out on the snow. [ 12 ] The applicant is under the impression that the mother is putting a lot of pressure on the child so that he returns with her. [ 13 ] When the child was assessed in January 2012, the reports clearly indicated special needs (adjustment disorder, dysphoric mood, disruptive behaviour, attachment difficulties and post-traumatic stress disorder).

When this was exposed to the mother, she claimed that Youth Protection was brainwashing her son and inventing things. [ 14 ] Since the last Court order, the mother’s collaboration with Youth Protection was minimal and irregular. But she is less aggressive when meeting with the workers. [ 15 ] The child has reached the maximum delays of placement.

He needs to be in a structured, safe, stable and loving place to stay, go to school and receive the medical and professional supports. [ 16 ] The mother does not seem to understand the needs of her son and the Court believes that she will not take the necessary steps to help her son with his special needs. The mother has been struggling with a chronic drinking problem for many years. She did go to treatment but she seems to be still struggling with her alcohol problem. [ 17 ] The child cannot be entrusted to his mother for the above reasons.

On the contrary, he needs to be entrusted in a foster family who could meet his needs. Moreover, a life plan has to be put in place as soon as possible.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the motion; REVISES the decision or order rendered on October 30, 2012; DECLARES that the security or the development of X, born[…], 2001, continues to be in danger; ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family for a period of one (1) year; ORDERS to establish a life plan for the child; ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequency and modalities; ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his siblings be encouraged and organized; ORDERS that the child attends school on a regular basis; ORDERS that the child receives all the professional help required by his situation (psychologist, child psychiatrist, home educator…) ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that aid, counsel ad assistance be provided to the child and his family; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the A ,who shall see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this enactment. __________________________________ Marc E.

Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant M e Joannie Jacob Counsel for the child M e Angèle Tommasel

Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 18, 2013