2022 QCCQ 14528, 2022 QCCQ 14528

Protection de la jeunesse — 229005 2022 QCCQ 14528 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001570-131 DATE: August 11, 2022 (written judgment rendered on October 3, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on September 1, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, namely the one of Ms. C and Mr.

D, if they are accredited as such, until September 1, 2022. [ 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 the child’s majority. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. Considering that the mother was duly notified with the application, the mother’s total disinvestment in the child’s life and the best interest of the child, the Court proceeds in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

He ignores most of the allegations, but he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Cassandra Neptune. She agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On May 22, 2012 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. The child was 9 months old. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of 6 months. The Court authorizes the child to be integrated under her mother’s care if she attends Centre A. [ 7 ] On December 17, 2013 , the Court revised the situation.

Both parents have serious alcohol consumption issues. The mother was accused of assaulting the father with a weapon while the child was present when supposed to be with her grandparents. The mother started Centre A Program in July 2013, with X, but she left before the end of September 2013. X was developing well at her aunt’s place. The mother recently improved her situation and was more open to collaborate. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family (her aunt) for 12 months with a reintegration after 7 months if the situation allows it. [ 8 ] On January 22, 2015 , the Court revised the situation.

The family situation remained very unstable since the previous decision, but tended to get better before the Court. The mother gave birth and try to reduce her alcohol intake. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for one year, but authorized a reintegration after June 2015, if the situation allows it. [ 9 ] On March 17, 2016 , the Court revised again the situation. X was developing well in her foster family. The mother only attended one contact with her daughter since the last decision. The mother did not collaborate with the DYP.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered the DYP to prepare a life plan, the whole until March 30, 2017.

[ 10 ] On May 10, 2017 , the Court revised once again the situation. The Court noted that between September 2013 and May 2016, the child had been through 50 different foster families and was moved 79 times in 13 different northern communities. She was in the same foster family since May 2016. The adaptation had been very difficult, the child displaying symptoms of attachment syndrome disorder. The child improved her situation and the foster family was ready to be involved on a long-term basis. The accreditation still had to be done.

None of the parents were involved in the child’s life and they were unreachable when authorizations were needed. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until September 30, 2017. [ 11 ] On November 1, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. The child was still in the same foster family, and she continued to display attachment issues. The foster family had some issues with the DYP services and asked for a short placement before going through a long-term placement.

The parents did not improve their situation and were still not involved in their child’s life. [ 12 ] On March 27, 2018 , the Court noted that the child was still in the same foster family, facing the same challenges. The services were put in place and the foster family would like to be involved on a long-term basis, but the child had difficulty to create a real bond. The Court maintained the child in a foster family until March 31, 2019. [ 13 ] On April 26, 2019 , the Court revised again the situation. The child improved her situation even if the traumas she faced in the past were still present.

The foster mothers were still ready to commit on a long-term basis. The situation of the parents remained the same, and they did not ask for any contact with their daughter for the last 3 years. The Court entrusted the child to Ms. E and Ms. F until she reaches her majority. [ 14 ] On September 1, 2021 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. After 5 years in the same foster family, the child had to be moved. A new foster family had been found, but the attachment remains a challenge for X. The child needed some medical cares, and the DYP will apply for Jordan Principle.

For the same period, the parents took no steps to have contact with the child. The Court declared that the situation of the child was still endangered and was also endangered because of her being abandoned by her parents. The Court entrusted her to Ms. C and Mr. D, the whole until September 1, 2022. Facts and Analysis [ 15 ] Since the last decision, the parents’ situation remained the same. They are disinvest from the life of their daughter.

The last contact between the child and the mother took place 6 years ago. [ 16 ] The parents do not participate to any clinical follow-up and refuse to collaborate with the DYP. They never call the DYP worker to have news about their daughter. [ 17 ] The child is still entrusted to Ms. C and Mr. D. She is very attached to them. [ 18 ] It is important to remind that the child lived different traumas relate to her biological family in Town A. For now, X categorically refuses to have any contact with her parents and to go to Town A.

By the voice of his lawyer, the father asks to have contact with his daughter. [ 19 ] The Court reminds that the contacts have to take place in the best interest of the child and not according to the sole desire of the parents. Doing so, if there is contacts, it will be following a request made by X and after having provided to her a proper preparation and support. [ 20 ] The child benefit from the services of psychotherapy and she has a regular follow-up with a specialist on attachment disorder. [ 21 ] Finally, the child gained stability in a foster family.

This foster family is ready to invest herself with the child on a long-term basis. The parents made no change in their situation and the child does not have to wait any longer for a decision to be taken about her future. [ 22 ] The plan suggested by the DYP fulfill all the child’s needs and is conformed to her desire.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely to Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and according to the child’s desire and capacity; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to Ms. C and Mr.

D, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling, a passport, driving license and a social insurance number; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 31 ] THE WHOLE until the child majority, namely [...], 2031. __________________________________ 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 father Date of hearing: August 11, 2022