2020 QCCQ 15086, 2020 QCCQ 15086

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010060 2020 QCCQ 15086 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000670-158 DATE: August 18, 2020 (written judgment rendered on October 15, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and A, unknown address Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] 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 a decision rendered on January 21, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to Mr. C until August 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow the return of the child to her parents and suggests that she be entrusted to Mr. C, the maternal grandmother’s spouse until she reaches her majority.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. The DYP was unable to serve her with the application as she does not have a fix address. After numerous attempts, the DYP worker finally reached the mother the day before the court hearing to inform her about the application. The mother admitted her relapse and not being able to attend the court house. She does not wish that the hearing be postponed. She told the DYP worker that her first wish would be to have her children back with her, but she knew that she cannot actually.

She is thankful that her parents take care of them and she does not want them to be moved from the grandparents’ place. [ 4 ] Despite the application was not dully served, considering the mother was informed and expressed her consent, considering the best interest of the children who ask to gain stability, the Court consents to proceed without service and in the absence of the mother. [ 5 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 6 ] X who is now 8 years old, is present and represented by Me Antoine Meunier.

She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the recommended measures. [ 7 ] X has one sister, Y (13 years old). The Court is also seized with her situation. History of the Situation [ 8 ] On May 7, 2015 , the Court was seized with the situation of the children. Y was 7 years old, and X was 3. In May 2014, the [Province A] Social Services intervened in the life of the children and they were entrusted to a foster family because of the mother’s way of life and neglect toward them.

In September 2014, upon the request of the mother, X and Y were entrusted to their maternal grandmother in City A. In January and February 2015, the mother attended a therapy centre for her alcohol addiction problems, anger management issues and parenting skills. By mid-March 2015, the mother relapsed. The mother had no stable place to live. The father had irregular contact with the children for the past years. Y appeared to develop well. She missed her mother, but understood the reason of her absence. X was developing well at her grandmother’s place.

The Court declared that the security and development of the children

were endangered [1] and entrusted them to their maternal grandmother, Ms. D for a period of six months with services for a total period of twelve months. [ 9 ] On October 22, 2015 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and the previous measures were maintained. On November 25, 2015 , the Court prolonged those measures. [ 10 ] On January 19, 2016 , the Court revised the situation and the evidence showed that the parents’ situation remained almost the same. The DYP was unable to obtain the collaboration from City B’s DYP.

During the father’s contacts, the children were confronted to situations they should not be and the visits had to be cut short. The mother moved a lot. She now lives with her new boyfriend in City C. She is pregnant and has health problems which are under investigation. Y was developing very well at her grandmother’s place, and she created very strong bonds with her. X continued to develop very well too. The Court entrusted the children to their maternal grandmother until they reach their majority. [ 11 ] On October 16, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and the children were entrusted to Mr.

C, the grandmother’s spouse. On December 10, 2019 , the Court prolonged the measures. [ 12 ] On January 21, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The parties signed a draft agreement and recognized that a situation of sexual abuse happened at the grandparents’ place, but they did not inform the DYP. Also, the grandmother started gambling and having financial issues. The mother was released from detention and entrusted a therapy centre. She was now living in City C. The father was living in City B and was difficult to be reached. The Court entrusted the child to Mr. C, the grandmother’s spouse.

The parents also agreed to receive help for their personal issues. Facts [ 13 ] The situation improved a lot at the grandparents’ place. There was no more consumption, and the grandmother resolved her gambling issues. Both grandparents are now working at school, and they are very well supported by the community in their commitment with their grandchildren. [ 14 ] X received the medical care that she needed (dentist and optometrist). [ 15 ] As mentioned earlier, despite a certain improvement noted at the last hearing, the mother relapsed and she does not have a permanent address.

She told the DYP worker that she lives in the street. She is still in City C, and everyone hopes than she is able to seek help with the different services available there. [ 16 ] The father continues to ovoid the DYP’s communications. He lives at his mother’s place with his spouse and his baby. He is still struggling with addiction. When the DYP worker was able to speak with him, he told her about the numerous therapies he went through, but it never worked and he always relapses.

The father seems affected by his situation, but it appears to be too deeply rooted for him to be able to resolve. [ 17 ] The children love their parents and ask for contacts, but they are difficult to organize considering the lack of involvement in the parents’ part. Analysis [ 18 ] The evidence shows that the situation of the children remains endangered because of the parent’s way of life. [ 19 ] The children are living in the grandparent’s environment since September 2014.

Y was 7 years old when she had been entrusted there and X was almost 4. [ 20 ] The grandparents always took good care of the children who are developing very well. During the last year, some concerns were raised on the part of the grandmother and that affected the trust of the DYP worker. For this reason, the children were entrusted specifically to Mr. C, who always demonstrated his capacity to prioritize the best interest of the children. Since then, the grandmother took serious steps to resolve her issues and she succeeds. Now she is the one who communicate more with the DYP.

The grandparents took care of the children’s schooling and health follow-up. [ 21 ] The Court is satisfied with the life plan proposed by the DYP. Obviously the parents are unable to resume the care of their children and they will also be unable to resume it in a near future. The children have the chance to evolve for a few years with their grandparents and to benefit from all the stability they need. [ 22 ] The Court has no hesitation to grant the recommended measures which are in the best interest of the children and respond to the principles of the applicable laws.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still endangered; [ 25 ] E NTRUSTS the child to Mr. C, as proximity foster family until she reaches her majority; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the maternal grandmother lives with Mr. C; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, her parents, Mr. C and her maternal grandmother;

[ 28 ] ORDERS that the child, her parents, Mr.

C and her maternal grandmother actively participate in the implementation of the Court ordered measures; [ 29 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek counselling for their personal situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober in the presence of the child; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be not exposed to people under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the grandparents’ home; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the frequency and the modalities of the contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to accept the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 34 ] WITHDRAWS the attributes of parental authority from the parents; [ 35 ] GRANTS those attributes to Mr.

C, who is now authorized to give any consent and to sign any forms regarding schooling, health care, extracurricular activities, passport request, travelling and driving licence; [ 36 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to inform the parents about the decision taken by Mr. C as soon as possible; [ 37 ] ORDERS that police force collaborate to the execution of the Court order; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until the child reaches her majority. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Antoine Meunier, attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 18, 2020