2018 QCCQ 9859, 2018 QCCQ 9859

Adoption — 18620 2018 QCCQ 9859 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division N o : 450-43-001552-188 DATE: OCTOBER 9 th , 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MONIQUE LAVALLÉE, J.C.Q.

In adoption for the child [1] : X born on [...] 2016 and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , assistant to the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at [...], Applicant , and A and B Defendants . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director or DYP) is asking the Court to declare eligible for adoption X who will be two years old in three days. [ 2 ] The present application was served on both parents on August 10 th, 2018. The reference period referred to in

section 559 of the Quebec Civil Code is therefore the period between February and August of this year. [ 3 ] The father dit not respond to the application and the Court is proceeding by default in his case. [ 4 ] The mother is present at the hearing and is represented by counsel who informs the Court that, although her client cannot bring herself to consent to the Director’s application, she has no defense to offer on any of the three legal critera the Court must assess in order to declare the child eligible for adoption. [ 5 ] The mother acknowledges that X is well cared for by his foster family and that it is in his best interest to remain there for the long term.

She however does not want him to be adopted.

[ 6 ] After hearing the evidence, the child’s attorney consents to the Director’s application. Context [ 7 ] X is the parents’ second child.

Their first son Y (4 ½ years old) was entrusted to his maternal grandmother at birith because of the mother’s history of severe neglect concerning her first child and because of the father’s history of violent behaviour and drug use. [ 8 ] Except for a brief period of 24 hours with his mother at La Villa Marie-Claire, Y has always lived with his grandmother and a Court order rendered on May 7 th 2015 entrusts Y to his maternal grandmother until the age of his majority, prohibits all contacts with his father and authorizes supervised contacts with his mother. [ 9 ] The mother’s first child from a previous relationship, Z (12 years old) was removed from her parents’ care at the age of six for serious neglect concerning her health needs and because she was exposed to conjugal violence between her parents.

She is also the subject of a Court order entrusting her to her maternal grandmother until the age of her majority. [ 10 ] X was entrusted to a foster family at birth. [ 11 ] Although supervised contacts between the child and his father were initially authorized by the Court, the father exercised his access rights on only one occasion and has therefore seen his son only once since the child’s birith. [ 12 ] The mother initially attended supervised visits with her son once a week.

The contacts went well. [ 13 ] On April 11 th , 2017, Judge Lise Gagnon declared that X’s security and development were in danger for reasons of serious risk of neglect by both parents. [ 14 ] The Court concluded that despite many years of services offered concerning Y and the mother’s first child Z, the parents’ situations had not evolved. [ 15 ] The father had not addressed his anger management and drug addiction issues, which he does not acknowledge. [ 16 ] He refused to speak to or meet with the DYP caseworker. [ 17 ] The parents’ relationship remained conflictual and, although they claimed to be separated to increase the mother’s chances of gaining custody of X, they continued to see each other. [ 18 ] The mother was incapable of asserting herself in the father’s presence.

She hid information from the caseworker who never knew if she was telling the truth. [ 19 ] The mother’s lifestyle was unstable. She had moved three times in the last year and was then renting a room at a friend’s apartment. [ 20 ] The evidence showed the mother has poor parenting skills and needs constant support to care for her children.

She can be adequate with a young baby but cannot meet their needs as they grow older, as reflected in the past Court orders. [ 21 ] She did not attend her appointments with the social worker at the CLSC to work on her personal issues. [ 22 ] In light of these facts, Judge Gagnon concluded that X’s return to either of his parents’ care was improbable. [ 23 ] Because a life plan for the child had not yet been defined, the Court authorized supervised contacts with the mother to continue but reduced their frequency to once a month in case of disagreement between the parties. [ 24 ] Because the father had not seen his son in many months and had declined the opportunity to see him, contacts between the child and his father were prohibited. [ 25 ] The April 11 th , 2017 Court order was rendered for a period of nine months. [ 26 ] From April to October 2017, the mother missed four of her six monthly visits with X.

On two occasions, the child was brought to the visit for nothing and reacted negatively on his return to his foster family. [ 27 ] The child’s last visit with his mother was in August 2017. [ 28 ] The Court suspended the visits on November 8 th , 2017. [ 29 ] In September 2017, the mother ended her relationship with the father. She was then in a brief relationship with Mr C who is a drug user and has a criminal record. [ 30 ] Since October 2017, she has been in a relationship with Mr D who was found guilty in 2017 of criminal harassment of an ex girlfriend.

He spent three months in prison and three months in rehab and is now on probation. [ 31 ] On June(??) 2018, Judge Gagnon reviewed her April 11 th , 2017 Court order. She extended X’s foster family placement, prohibited all contacts between the child and his parents and ordered various other measures, including a social follow-up for the parents if they request it, the whole for a period of one year.

[ 32 ] The mother is now pregnant with her fourth child. Mr D is the father and the couple hopes to demonstrate that they are able to care for their baby. The mother states that she regularly attends her medical appointments and is taking parenting courses in view of the baby’s arrival. Analysis [ 33 ] The evidence shows that during the reference period of February to August 2018, the mother did not request nor participate in the DYP’s social follow up. [ 34 ] The case worker was only able to meet with her twice.

He had difficulty getting in touch with her as she would not return his calls or attend their meetings. [ 35 ] The mother testified at the hearing that she could not bring herself to meet with the social worker or to ask for news of X because it was too painful for her to talk about her son. [ 36 ] She did ask for pictures of X in June but it was two months before the case worker was able to give them to her because he could not get in touch with her. [ 37 ] The mother has not received any other services to work on her personal issues.

The CLSC has referred her to various services concerning the sexual abuse by her father and the domestic violence by X’s father but she has yet to follow through on those references. [ 38 ] She has not contributed to X’s maintenance during this period. [ 39 ] As for the father he has never cooperated with the DYP case worker and refuses to meet with him. [ 40 ] He does not ask for news of his son or show any interest in how he is doing. [ 41 ] During the reference period of February to August 2018, the only times the case worker was able to see or to speak to him was at the Court House on February 13 th , and June 6 th for scheduled hearings concerning X under the Youth Protection Act. [ 42 ] The February 13 th hearing was postponed.

On that day the father introduced the case worker to a woman he stated was his cousin and asked that X be entrusted to her. [ 43 ] The mother testified today that the woman was in fact not the father’s cousin but his present girlfriend. [ 44 ] On June 6 th , the father left the Court House before the hearing began. [ 45 ] The case worker has no information on the father’s personal situation.

The father even refuses to give the worker his address or phone number. [ 46 ] When the case worker asked the father if he was receiving or had received any services for his personal issues namely his drug use or his anger management problems, the father replied it was none of his business and denied having any issues to work on. [ 47 ] The father has not contributed to his son’s maintenance. [ 48 ] In light of these facts, the Court concludes that neither parent has in fact assumed the care, maintenance or education of X in the six months prior to being served with the present application. [ 49 ] The Court also concludes that it is unlikely that either parent will resume custody of their son and assume his care, maintenance or education as this unlikelihood is presumed and neither parent has presented any evidence to refute this presumption. [ 50 ] The father did not respond to the present application and the mother acknowledges that it is in X’s best interest to remain in his present foster home for the long term. [ 51 ] Lastly, the Court must decide whether it is in the child’s best interest to be declared judicially eligible for adoption. [ 52 ] The evidence shows that X has been in placement since his birth, has not seen his mother in over a year and has seen his father only once.

He has no attachment to his parents who are in effect strangers to him. [ 53 ] He has lived with his present foster family since he was two months old.

He is now almost two years old and has bonded with his caregivers who, from his perspective, are the only parents he has ever known. [ 54 ] It is clearly in X’s best interest to confirm legally what has become his emotional and affective relality and to provide him with the permanent security and stability and true sense of belonging that a legal family unit can provide. [ 55 ] The mother states that she does not want her son to be adopted because she wants him to keep the name he was given at birth and she would like to get periodic updates of his development and pictures of him. [ 56 ] The Court must however analyse the situation from the child’s point of view according to his needs and best interet and not those of his parent. [ 57 ] Thus, the present decision to declare X eligible for adoption is not rendered against the parents but for the child.

FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT : PARTIALLY GRANTS the present application; DECLARES the child X judicially eligible for adoption; DESIGNATES the child’s present foster parents to exercise parental authority in his regard; ORDERS that the Court clerk transmit to the parties and their attorneys a copy of the present judgment. __________________________________ Monique Lavallée, J.C.Q. M e Marie-Pier Trépanier For the Director of Youth Protection M e Céline Gallant For the mother M e Solem Panneton-Jutras For the child Date of hearing: October 9 th , 2018 Written judgment signed on: November 23 rd 2018