2018 QCCQ 12523, 2018 QCCQ 12523

Protection de la jeunesse — 182915 2018 QCCQ 12523 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 615-41-002077-153 DATE: March 29, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1] AND MR [SOCIAL WORKER 2], exercising their profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at […] Applicants -and- X, presently hosted at […] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at […] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 decision rendered on January 8, 2018 (hearing on December 13, 2017) which entrusted the child to the proximity foster home of his paternal grandmother for a period of six months. [ 2 ] Around January 7, 2018, a violent event occurred between the father and the paternal grandmother. She then decided that she could not take care of the child in these circumstances.

On January 18, 2018, the child was entrusted to the foster family of Mrs C on provisional measures. [ 3 ] This day, the Director recommends that the Court entrust the child to that foster family for an additional 12 months, and orders various assistance measures for the same period. Considering the many changes in living environments this young boy went through in his life, the Director is openly looking to entrust him to a family that will want to invest themselves with him on a permanent basis. [ 4 ] The father was duly served and absent. He lives in Town A.

The mother was duly served and present at the hearing. As for the child, he was absent and represented by counsel. [ 5 ] The mother did not have a lawyer at the beginning of the hearing, but she met with the legal aid lawyer during the recess who accepted to represent her. When Court resumed, the mother requested a remand of the audition to which the Director objected. She testified on her motion to remand.

She understood that she couldn’t get her son back for now and expressed her concern that she might not have enough time to get herself ready to take care of him eventually. [ 6 ] During her testimony on the motion, the mother was very emotional and left the Court room crying. Since it was lunch time, the Court took a recess to give her time to recollect herself. She did not come back in the afternoon.

She talked with her lawyer who informed the Court that she wished to withdraw her motion to remand, and agreed with the Director’s recommendation to entrust X to a foster family for 12 months. [ 7 ] X is five years old. It is now his sixth placement. His security and development were declared in danger in July 2015. At the time, he was entrusted to Mrs D’s foster family for six months. The mother could not offer a secure and safe environment for her child. She was struggling with her addiction problem and would confide X to people who did not have the means to take care of him and could

not ensure his security; she would go drinking for days. She was then living with the maternal grandmother with whom she had a conflictual and at times violent relationship. [ 8 ] In November 2015, X was entrusted to his mother as she started a mother-child therapy in Portage. She put an abrupt end to the therapy, completing only six months out of the nine-month program. [ 9 ] In April 2016, X returned to Mrs D’s foster family until July 2017. From July to October 2017, he was entrusted to E and F’s foster family in Town A for a period of nine months.

Although they had mentioned their interest in taking care of X on a permanent basis, they withdrew from their engagement towards the child in October 2017: the integration of X in their family took too long as they were in Town A and he was in Town B, and they had a hard time communicating with him because he was raised in a French environment and they only spoke English and [a native language] in their home. [ 10 ] From October 2017, he lived with his paternal grandmother Mrs G, who was accredited as a proximity foster family, and in December 2017, he was entrusted to her for a period of six months.

The mother was still struggling with alcohol and drug addiction, and the father maintained his alcohol consumption and didn’t address his violence problem. [ 11 ] Less than a month after the child went to live with his grandmother, the father showed up heavily intoxicated at the grandmother’s residence around midnight and tried to break down the front door. A violent argument between the father, his sister and the grandmother followed. When he left, he caused damages to his sister’s car. Complaints were filed with the police.

The grandmother had previously warned her son about this type of behaviour: she suggested he get help quickly as her involvement with X could be jeopardized if he dropped in uninvited and under the influence of alcohol repeatedly. [ 12 ] She is tired and scared of her son’s violent reactions and no longer wishes to take care of X in those circumstances. [ 13 ] After a discussion between the workers in Town B (CISSS

A) and in Town A (CSSS B), it was decided that because of the father’s attitude, the next foster home chosen for X should not be in Town A. Considering his history of multiple foster families and moves, his next living environment should be stable and open to take care of him on a long-term basis. The father’s personal difficulties are very consuming and although he understands, once sobered up, the harm his behaviour brings his son, he cannot control himself. The risks of choosing a family in Town A are too important, considering he might interfere, which could result in the same consequences.

It was also underlined that it is difficult to find a family willing to get involved because of the father’s past and actual violent behaviour. [ 14 ] The mother understands that it is not possible for her to take care of her son. She has maintained a lifestyle filled with drug and alcohol abuse. In October 2017, the mother had acknowledged the impacts of her absence on her son and wished to get back in touch with him when she would have sufficiently improved her personal difficulties. [ 15 ] No steps have yet been taken to engage in a follow up for her addiction problem.

She did recently get back in touch with a Friendship Center worker to support her in improving her lifestyle. Although recent, this desire to clean up her life is very positive. She needs to follow through, take action and maintain a healthier lifestyle. [ 16 ] The last official contact between mother and son was in July 2016. She also ran into him at the December 2017 Court audition. She did not ask for any visitation nor did she contact him by phone.

He is happy to see his mother but does not have a significant bound considering their sparse contacts. [ 17 ] The father currently lives in his grandparent’s home while he is still waiting to obtain a house in his community. He has been struggling with alcohol and violence problems for years. He has an important criminal past and was incarcerated several times. He wishes to undertake a closed therapy to address his difficulties, but has yet to take action in that regard. [ 18 ] Before X’s arrival in the community of Town A in July 2017, the father did not phone or ask visitation with his son.

He showed more implication while the boy was living with Mrs G, and he would present himself regularly at her house for visits. X would get excited and happy to see him. [ 19 ] The father is saddened by the fact that his son had to leave the community, and more so since he is responsible for his departure. “I scraped everything, it’s my fault,” he says. When the worker explained to him their intention to recommend that X be sent to a foster family in the [area A] First Nation, he understood and agreed to the measure. [ 20 ] X’s adaptation went smoothly within his new foster family.

He was shy in the beginning, but started to interact rapidly with the foster mother. He is happy, comfortable and affectionate with the couple, and has taken well to everyone in the family. He adjusted easily to his new routine and is doing well in school. X is a gentle and docile child, compliant with rules. [ 21 ] The Cs have been fostering children for 15 years, and are very excited to welcome X in their family as they had always kept girls before.

They offer him a very secure, stable and healthy routine, are involved in his school environment and practice traditional activities with family members on weekends. They are open to invest in him on a long-term basis. ANALYSIS [ 22 ] X is a healthy and resilient young boy given the many changes he has gone through. Unfortunately, the latest efforts to find someone to take care of him in Town A where he could maintain ties with his family members were unsuccessful. [ 23 ] Considering his history, the main goal for now is to offer him a permanent and positive environment.

The C family can offer him the stability and security he needs. He has adjusted well to the daily life with them and is doing well in his school environment. [ 24 ] X will be entrusted to this foster family for the next 12 months. This period is long enough for him to settle in and live peacefully, without any disturbances.

[ 25 ] At the expiration of this period, the Court will need to make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, strong relationships and stable living conditions on a permanent basis for him. X has been under foster care for more than 3 years (40 months). It is way past the legal delay set forth in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 26 ] The mother is still struggling with her unresolved addiction and personal problems. She never undertook the post-therapeutic follow-up that was ordered in October 2015. If she is serious and determined to make real changes in her life, this 12-month period will allow her to work towards her goals and achieved them, or at least be underway to do so. She has had the same goals for years now, with no tangible result.

She must mobilize herself quickly if she wants to be part of her son’s life. [ 27 ] The father also has to address his long-standing problems of addiction and violence. He will need to establish that he can control his consumption and behaviour before he can think of having regular unsupervised contacts with his son.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2012, are still in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS that X be placed in a foster home for a period of 12 months; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the visitations of the parents with the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities, environment and the presence of a third party; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the visitations of the grandparents with the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities, environment and the presence of a third party; [ 33 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents benefit from an addiction follow-up, and this, for the time judged necessary by the professional dispensing the service; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents authorize the persons dispensing the services to give to the Director of Youth Protection information concerning attendance, collaboration, goal achievements and their recommendations; [ 35 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father participates actively to the social follow-up offered by the CSSS B by applying their recommendations which will be given by the professional dispensing the follow-up to put an end to the compromised situation; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father benefit from an individual follow-up, that he follows the recommendations of the professional giving the service, and this, until it’s judged necessary by the professional; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receives all health care services required by his condition; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection brings help, advice and assistance to X and his family for a period of 12 months; [ 39 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present order if required; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q.

M e Caroline Daniel Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Claude Cossette Lawyer for the child M e Jean-Francis Bonnette Legal Aid Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: February 27, 2018