2018 QCCQ 20391, 2018 QCCQ 20391

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811617 2018 QCCQ 20391 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002120-175 DATE: November 20, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April, 11 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on November 1, 2017, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2017. At that date, the Court declared the security and development in danger and entrusted the child, until November 30, 2018, to the foster family of B. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends extending the decision rendered on November 1, 2017, and to entrust the child to the foster family of Mrs. B and M. C, until the age of majority.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present by videoconference and represented by Me Léonard. She admitted all the allegations, and she agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by Me Tommasel who submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in his best interest. Facts [ 5 ] On November 1, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 6 weeks old. The mother had a history of alcohol consumption. Her other children were entrusted to foster care. Before the birth of X, she clearly mentioned that she does not want to take care of the new born.

She found a family ready to adopt the child, but they changed their mind. After the birth, she left the hospital without the baby. No Inuit foster family was found. The DYP entrusted the baby to a foster family in [region A]. A hearing problem was noted and X was supposed to see an audiologist in November 2017. The DYP asked the Court to declare the security and development of the child in danger because of the abandon, but the mother did not agree with this motive. She always said that she knows she is not able to take care of him and for this reason made the necessary step to give him for adoption.

According to her, it’s not because no adoptive family was found that she abandons her son. The Court noted that she is concerned with the well-being of her child and wants the best for him. For this reason, the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger because of the serious risk of neglect and entrusted the child to Ms. B as a foster family until the end of November 2018. The Court also ordered that health care and health services be provided and that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised.

Facts [ 6 ] Since the last order, the foster family had some concerns about the physical development of X. They noted that his tonus was not on the average and he suffered few health problems. X was hospitalized many times. On September 5, 2018, the health professional confirmed that X is suffering from the Dystrophy of Duchesne, a very severe stage of muscular dystrophy. [ 7 ] The foster family was very affected by this diagnostic, but maintain their involvement in X’s life and stayed very close to him. [ 8 ] Ms. B and her spouse Mr.

C were present in City A with X for the hearing and testify about all the love they have for him.

They have two biological children (6 and 11 years old) who also love X. He is an integral part of the family. [ 9 ] The foster parents received a lot of information from the medical staff and are totally aware about what they will have to live with X in the future. Despite that, their love and their involvement never diminish. [ 10 ] They are very open to maintain contact with the mother. They are aware that, in a few years, X will be in a wheelchair and the travelling could be difficult, but they want to do all they can to maintain X in contact with his family members and his culture.

In City B, they have contact with parents who have Inuit children. Ms. B confirms that her employer is very open to give her time to come in the North for the visit and the mother is also very welcome in the South. [ 11 ] The mother was also very affected when she was made aware about the diagnosis. She explained that one of her relative also has a dystrophy. She testified by videoconference that she appreciates the foster family maintained her engagement with X despite the diagnosis. Analysis [ 12 ] The situation of X is still in danger for the same motive (serious risk of neglect).

The revision report speaks about abandon, but it’s important to keep in mind that the compromising was not declared on this ground. [ 13 ] The Court was witness of the collaboration between the mother and the foster family. As the mother was on videoconference, when the undersigned arrived in the court room, the foster father was in front of the screen with X in his arms to allow him to see his mum and to hear her voice. [ 14 ] X has the chance to have found a loving and very caring foster family. The Court is convinced that he will receive all the best in this family.

Despite the diagnosis, this family never gave up and nothing change the love they have for him. The Court has no hesitation to grant the application and to order the recommended measures. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2017, are still in danger; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family, namely Ms. B and Mr. C, until the age of majority; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services, notably related to his diagnostic of muscular dystrophy; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in presence of the child; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother remain without any violent behaviours in the presence of the child; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 23 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority from the mother and GRANTS them to Ms.

B and Mr. C, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother, Ms. B and Mr. C; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2035. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the mother

Date of hearing: November 20, 2018