2021 QCCQ 17259, 2021 QCCQ 17259

Protection de la jeunesse — 214658 2021 QCCQ 17259 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002234-182 DATE: February 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 1, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, unknown address in City A 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 July 7, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2016. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, until February 28, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return X to his mother and asks to entrust him to a foster family, namely Ms. B, until [...], 2034.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is homeless in City A. She was served by the newspaper as authorized by the Court. She is absent and not represented. She did not contact the DYP office nor the clerk. Considering the serving, the best interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The child is absent and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits that his situation remain endangered and that the recommended measures are in his best interest. [ 5 ] X has 2 siblings, Y is 8 years old and, Z is 6 years old.

The Court is also seized with their situation. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On January 29, 2019 , Court was seized with an application for protection. The child was 2 years old. The child’s situation was known from the DYP. Due to the mother’s personal issues, the child had been entrusted to the foster family of Ms. C since April 2017. He was doing very well there. He came back under his mother’s care as extended family members were protective. The mother has alcohol consumption and financial issues, and she was involved in a conflictual relationship.

Due to that, she requested sometimes the placement of her children. X had a strong attachment with his mother and also developed a strong attachment with his foster parents. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family until November 30, 2019, but indicated to the DYP to be very cautious before moving the child from his current foster family. [ 7 ] On November 28, 2019 , the Court prolonged the placement under a provisional measure. [ 8 ] On December 19, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for revision.

The evidence showed that X had been entrusted under the care of Ms. B on September 13, 2019, after being entrusted to different foster families since the last decision. The mother was still struggling with her alcohol consumption issues. She was treated for her lung cancer and frequently travelled to City A. The Court maintained the child in a foster family and took judicial notice that he should remain with Ms. B, the whole until May 22, 2020. [ 9 ] On May 22, 2020 , the Court prolonged the measures on a provisional measure. [ 10 ] On July 7, 2020 , the Court revised the situation.

The mother left for City A and had no contact with her children since

December 2019. Y and Z were entrusted to various foster families before being entrusted to their older sister. The previous foster family gave up because the children were running away frequently to go to their mother’s place. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family chosen by the DYP until February 28, 2021, withdrawn the attributes of the parental authority from the mother, ordered a prohibition of contacts between Z and Y, and Mr. D and Ms. E, order that X benefit from services with a speech therapist and ordered that a life plan be prepared. Facts [ 11 ] X’s siblings are living with Ms.

F, he is entrusted to Ms. B and due to public health restriction, the contacts between them are less frequent. He misses them. [ 12 ] The mother is still in City A and she is homeless. She called the DYP sometimes and each time, she appeared intoxicated. She could be emotional or aggressive. She did not exercise physical contacts with him since the last order. Ms. B send pictures to the mother 3 times a month, but the mother never called the child. [ 13 ] The maximum delays of placements are reached in the situation of X. The mother is obviously unable to care and provide for her child.

He has developed strong bonds with his foster parents who are willing to continue to foster him until the age of majority. The child is well stabilized in his environment. [ 14 ] X is followed by [Center A] due to development delays and he is also followed by a speech therapist. His foster mother has no more concern regarding his development. It is also important to note that X, for his young age, already understands 4 languages ([language A], [language B], English and French).

Analysis [ 15 ] The child’s situation remains endangered and the mother is not in a position to take care of him, currently nor in a near future. [ 16 ] The maximum delays of placements are reached in the situation of X and the Court has to make a permanent decision. The child is living for more than one year in an environment where he receives answers to all his needs. He is in a very loving and caring environment. [ 17 ] Moreover, the child is maintained in his community.

He kept contact with his extended family and with his siblings. [ 18 ] The life plan suggested by the DYP respected the criteria established by the jurisprudence and is in the best interest of the child. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2016, are still endangered; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely Ms.

B; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and collaborate fully with the Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care and services required by his situation particularly a speech therapy; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and granted to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family until [...], 2034; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child

Date of hearing: February 22, 2021