2011 QCCQ 5360, 2011 QCCQ 5360

Protection de la jeunesse — 11864 2011 QCCQ 5360 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000380-102 DATE: February 15, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, deceased Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The delegate of the Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to declare the security and development of X, born on […], 2002, in danger according to

section 38(

a) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The child is present and represented by a lawyer. THE FACTS [ 3 ] The child has no paternal filiation and the mother committed suicide. After the tragic death of his mother, X was under the care of his grandfather who also passed away after his battle with cancer. During this period, the child was under the care of a maternal aunt who didn't have the capacity to provide the necessary support and supervision to X.

In fact, the aunt is presently struggling with alcohol related issues, which led to the placement of her daughter in foster care. [ 4 ] During the course of the present proceedings, [Social Worker 2] entrusted the child to Ms B and Mr C. [ 5 ] The evidence shows that the child was left with no tutor figure authority. The facts fulfill the definition of abandonment as enacted in

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , as the child's care wasn't adequately assumed by another person until the involvement of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] Consequently, the Court declares that the security and development of the child are endangered. MEASURES APPLICABLE [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to entrust the child to a foster family, to wit Mr C and Ms B until his majority. The child agrees to that measure. [ 8 ]

Section 4 and the last paragraph of

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act provide that: if the return of the child to the family is not possible, every decision concerning the child must aim at providing stability and continuity of care on a permanent basis. [ 9 ] Thus, the objective of stability sought out by the legislator depends upon the promptness of the D.Y.P. in proposing permanent measures that are in the best interest of the child and that meet the objective of stability and continuity. [ 10 ] From the case law developed on that matter, emerges two essential conditions that must be met before the Court can render a decision aimed at providing continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions to the child on a permanent basis: 1) The prospect of the child's return with his family is unrealistic.

2) The existence of a life project by which the child is able to adapt and bond with his new family. [1] [ 11 ] In order to satisfy to the second condition, the Court must verify the true long-term commitment of the surrogate family towards the child as well as the level of attachment of the child to his new family. [ 12 ] Moreover, in order to avoid the shunting around of the child from one foster family to another, the Court must have the means to confirm and order that the child be entrusted to a specific foster family most likely to meet all of his needs. This is in keeping with the objective of continuity and stability set forth by the Youth Protection Act and the

interpretation given by the Courts [2] . [ 13 ] In the present case, X has been living with Mr C and Ms B for the past six months. He is well settled in his foster family and feels at home. [ 14 ] Ms B is the mother's cousin. She first got to know X through the child's grandfather. She and her husband grew fond of the child and got involved in his life during the grandfather's illness. [ 15 ] The B-C couple have three kids of their own, one of which is about the same age as X. The two other children are young adults.

Ms C and Mr B are both committed in ensuring the child's upbringing by providing him with the love, support and structure he needs. In that regard, the evidence shows that the foster family carefully thought through the implications of a long-term commitment towards X. Moreover, education is a strong value within the family unit, as Ms B is assistant director of the A School Board. [ 16 ] The couple shows openness towards the child's maternal aunt D and are ready to facilitate the maintenance of contacts between both of them.

In addition to their commitment, the foster parents and X are clearly attached to one another. [ 17 ] The plan proposed by the D.Y.P. respects X interests. [ 18 ] On the condition he remains in the care of Ms B and Mr C, the Court is convinced that the foster parents are wiling and able to provide X with a healthy emotional development and general well-being on a long-term basis. [ 19 ] FOR THE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2002, are in danger by reason of abandonment; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child remain in foster care until he reaches majority; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of X with the foster family of B and C; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his foster family; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be granted to the Director of Youth Protection, to Ms B and Mr C for primary medical and health care, sports, leisure and school activities; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Girouard, Adam & associates Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Denis Trottier Legal Aid A Lawyer for the child Date of hearing: January 25, 2011