2020 QCCQ 12770, 2020 QCCQ 12770

Protection de la jeunesse — 209339 2020 QCCQ 12770 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001968-160 DATE: May 20, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, unknown address Mother and B , residing and domiciled at House […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on April 25, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until March 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the placement has to be prolonged until he reaches his majority.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served, the parents are absent and not represented. The DYP made many attempts to ensure the father’s presence, but he never attended the hearing. Considering the mother is unreachable for the last two years, and considering the father is totally aware of the hearing and of the DYP’s request, the Court proceeded in their absence. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by Me Neptune. He agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On June 12, 2015 , the parents signed a voluntary measure.

They recognized their substance abuse and conjugal violence issues. The child was maintained under their care, and they committed to address their personal issues for a period of nine months. [ 6 ] On February 16, 2016 , the Court prolonged the immediate protective measure taken by the DYP and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 7 ] On February 23, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 8 ] On March 17, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for protection.

The evidence showed that four days after signing the voluntary measures, the family house was totally burned. X and his three siblings were with their mother and grandmother, both highly intoxicated. The grandmother and the eight-month-old baby passed away. The children were also frequently left alone without proper supervision and the parents have alcohol and conjugal violence issues. The mother tried to remain sober a lot, but she frequently relapsed.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [1] , entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered the service of an external educator until March 31, 2017. [ 9 ] On March 29, 2017 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and maintained the measures previously ordered.

[ 10 ] On May 11, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. The father had been detained a few months during the last revision period. After being released, the police had to intervene for other conjugal events and the father had to live in another community as condition. The mother collaborated very well with the DYP services, but she was still unable to offer a structured environment to her children and refused to enter a therapy program even if she was authorized to attend it with her children.

X has been entrusted to a new foster family in Town B and he demonstrated his capacity to function in a well-structured environment and his tantrums diminished. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until March 31, 2018, and ordered that the family receive the services of an external educator. [ 11 ] On March 27, 2018 , the evidence showed that the mother displayed suicidal verbalization in the presence of her children during a home visit. She continued to have alcohol addiction issues and kept refusing to attend a therapy. She was living in Town C, but did not have a stable place to stay.

The father was detained and continued to express his desire to be involved in his children’s lives. The children were entrusted to extended family members who were also followed by the DYP and the children had to be transferred a few times to ensure their safety. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered the preparation of a life plan, the whole until March 31, 2019. [ 12 ] On March 27, 2019 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 13 ] On April 25, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for revision.

At that time both parents were detained. X is in the same foster family since November 2018. Despite his detention since 2017, the father always offered a very good collaboration. He recognized not being able to take care of his children and expressed the desire to maintain contact with them. The mother was in Town C for the last two years and was not involved in her children’s lives. She has not expressed desire to keep regular contact with her children. The Court noted that X was entrusted to 24 different foster families. Despite a family council, no extended foster family was found to foster X.

He lives in the South since his placement in November 2018, and he adapted well to his new environment. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered that a life plan be prepared, the whole until March 31, 2020. [ 14 ] On March 26, 2020 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. Facts [ 15 ] X is living with his present foster family since November 6, 2018.

He is in second grade, and he is doing very well at school. [ 16 ] The foster mother is an assistant director at school and the foster father stays at home taking care of their five biological children plus X and another foster child. [ 17 ] X improved his behaviour a lot since he arrived in this family.

He has no more tantrums and accept the authority easily. [ 18 ] He practises some sports as swimming, hockey and baseball. [ 19 ] When he arrived, he did not speak a lot of French, but he improved a lot and that did not affect his schooling. [ 20 ] He does not speak a lot about his biological family except his siblings, and he is always happy to see them. He can see his cousin quite often as he is fostered not too far. During a home visit in the North in December, the foster father met X’s brother’s foster parents who live in Town D and they exchanged their phone number.

They planned to meet each other down South, but this project was slowed down because of Covid-19. X sees his other siblings on video calls or in person during the cultural trip. [ 21 ] The father called twice at the foster family’s house, but he never called back after. The foster parents would like him to call more often to maintain contact with X and also for X to have opportunity to speak Inuktitut. [ 22 ] In her report, the DYP worker mentions: X is a child who has experienced trauma in his life. He lost his little sister and grandmother in a fire and he remembers this incident.

He was a victim of negligence in some of his placements and up until March of 2019, it was still affecting him. He does not show much interest in his native culture, and actually represses the topic when it comes up. We want to help X build more positive memories of his hometown with structured visits that help him make positive associations to the experiences he has. [ 23 ] The last cultural trip was in December 2013. X went in Town A with his foster father.

He was happy to see his family members, and he spent quality time with them. [ 24 ] The foster parents are open to receive services and counsels and they participate in a program to help X with his past traumas. They are also open to participate to the cultural trip and to receive communication from the biological family. [ 25 ] The father completed Center B treatment on May 16, 2019. He continued to collaborate very well with the DYP services. He works at the Co-op grocery store and loves his job. He has a history of sexual offence, and the last one was in 2017.

The father did not participate in the video calls organized to see his son, but was very happy to see him in person when he came in Town A. [ 26 ] The mother did not communicate with the DYP since 2018, and doing so did not exercise any contact with her son. She should still live in Town C. She attends Center A treatment and run away three times between June and September 2019. She started the A program before being transferred in a specialized program for people with mental health issues following a medical opinion. Considering her running away, none of those programs have been completed.

During the few months she was at Center A, she displayed unstable behaviour and violence towards the staff and the other residents. [ 27 ] The DYP asks that the attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents because the mother is totally absent and the father is very difficult to be reached when needed. Analysis

[ 28 ] Considering the parents’ issues, the situation of X remains endangered. [ 29 ] The maximum delay of placement is reached and the evidence does not show that the parents can resume the care of their son in a short delay. [ 30 ] The DYP explained all the steps taken to find a foster family in the extended family or at least in the North and it had been unsuccessful. The plan suggested by the DYP answers the child’s needs and it is in his best interested to have the opportunity to root himself in a caring and loving environment.

The foster mother attended the meeting by videoconference in the presence of X, and the Court could see all the attention he has. He is clearly part of the family. [ 31 ] The contacts with the biological family has to be maintained as much as possible and specifically with his siblings, considering that he wishes and appreciates such contacts. [ 32 ] The Court is convinced that the withdrawn of the attributes of parental authority is necessary to ensure X’s best interest.

That does not mean that the parents do not have to be informed of any emergency and they have to be maintained aware of their child’s development. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still endangered; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family, namely Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection, with a minimal frequency of twice a year in the North and at any other moments in the South if the parents have the opportunity to come down South; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, his siblings and his cousin (including children entrusted to foster families) be organized on a regular basis in person and by any technological way; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 43 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents; [ 44 ] GRANTS those attributes of parental authority to Ms.

C and Mr. D, namely regar-ding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling, passport and driving licence; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2029. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 20, 2020