2012 QCCQ 13962, 2012 QCCQ 13962

Protection de la jeunesse — 125681 JJ0296 2012 QCCQ 13962 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-023662-109 DATE: September 24, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2010 - and - A Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 24, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered October 12, 2011, entrusting the child to the care of Ms. B for one year with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child remains in the care of Ms. B; • The child continues to thrive in the care of Ms. B; • Ms.

B is committed to caring for the child. • The mother has not had any contact with the child; • The mother has not contacted the case worker to inquire about the child nor to report on her own situation; • The mother’s whereabouts are currently unknown. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be maintained in the care of Ms. B and that the contacts between the child and the mother be prohibited. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained for a period of one year.

[ 5 ] The mother was not present at the hearing and her whereabouts are unknown. The mother does not participate in the social follow- up and has had no contacts with her son since the last Court order. Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child is asking the Court to maintain the child with Ms. B, but to render a short order so as to have more information concerning Ms. B’s home and the permanent plan for the child.

Me Laforce considers that the adoption assessment done by Ms. [social worker 1], youth worker, from the adoption department of the Centre jeunesse A, raises many concerns and concludes that it would not be possible for Ms. B to adopt X. [ 7 ] Me Laforce filed as exhibit E-1 the Rapport d’évaluation psychosocial written by [social worker 1] and dated May 22, 2012. Me Laforce considers that the child faces certain problems in this environment, including the fact that Ms. B has been calling him X when his name on his birth certificate is X. [ 8 ] In her report, [social worker 1] outlines many serious concerns. Ms.

B lives with her oldest son, C. The mother and son have a symbiotic immature relationship and C sometimes calls his mother “sa femme”. Moreover, C had a serious accident while horse back riding in 2009. Following this accident he was hospitalized and needed intensive occupational therapy to learn how to eat and walk. He since then presents with certain difficulties. [ 9 ] Ms. B also mentioned to Ms. [social worker 1] that it would be a good idea for her son to adopt X, since this is only way he can become a father. As for Mr.

C, he says he wishes to live with his mother until he dies and stated that he does not wish for X to know that he is adopted as the child looks like him. On this point Ms. [social worker 1] writes on page 5 of her report: Madame a une double motivation pour accueillir X. Premièrement, son fils veut être père et désire adopter l'enfant avec elle. Madame a été informée qu'elle doit d'abord adopter l'enfant et une fois que le jugement d'adoption aura été prononcé, son fils pourrait procéder à une adoption spéciale.

Compte tenu que son garçon est homosexuel, les deux croient que ceci est le seul moyen pour C d'être père.

Malgré les explications contre ce projet, il faut noter que C veut procéder et tient à adopter l'enfant. Madame veut adopter l'enfant en tant que grand-parent et se fait appeler «mamie» tandis que son fils serait appelé «papa». [ 10 ] These comments seem to indicate that Ms. B wanted to adopt X in order to then be able to give a special consent for adoption in favour of her son C under

section 555 of the Civil Code of Quebec . This course of action would have been deceitful, as Mr. C could probably not adopt a child on his own. Furthermore, this is certainly not the plan presented to the Court by A in 2010 and 2011. The Court reports filed indicated clearly that Ms. B would be the main caregiver. In fact, Mr. C's name and difficulties were never mentioned in these reports. [ 11 ] Ms. [social worker 1] writes that X seems to have achieved his milestones since he as been living with Ms. B and her son and that for the child they are his psychological parents.

She explains why she does not recommend the adoption of the child: Cependant, nous avons plusieurs inquiétudes par rapport à leurs compétences parentales, ce qui a des implications à moyen et long terme . Le rôle de X dans cette famille semble être de combler les carences affectives profondes de madame et son fils, carences causées par d’importantes blessures émotionnelles, pour la plupart non résolues en raison de leur manque d’ouverture et leur méconnaissance de ces dernières.

Par le discours de madame B et son fils, nous constatons que l’histoire de vie de X sera un sujet tabou dans la famille, ceci par souci maladroit de bien faire dans l’intérêt de l’enfant, mais qui se basera davantage sur la peur que l’enfant les abandonne un jour au profit de sa mère d’origine.

Les histoires de vie de toutes les personnes impliquées sont tissées de problèmes de consommation qui les ont traumatisées, mais qui ont été minimisées et même reconstruites afin de protéger le consommateur et non les personnes traumatisées. […] Ceci nous amène à notre plus grande inquiétude par rapport à madame, soit son fils C, notamment leur relation affective et aussi la santé mentale de monsieur. Ce dernier démontre d’importantes difficultés personnelles incluant l’acceptation de son orientation sexuelle ainsi que les séquelles de son accident cérébrovasculaire qui semblent même inquiéter madame.

Le discours et les comportements de monsieur indiquent un manque important par rapport à sa construction personnelle sur le plan affectif, surtout lorsque nous considérons sa représentation de son histoire de vie qui inclut un père chaleureux et complice qui est loi de la réalité, ainsi que sa relation presque symbiotique avec madame qu’il appelle en blague « sa femme ».

Devant la conduite de son fils, madame devient impuissante et ne présente pas une figure d’autorité cohérente, ce qui s’illustre par son consentement à l’adoption de X par ce fils fragile qui assumera le rôle de père dans la vie de l’enfant . (Emphasis added) [ 12 ] The Court heard the testimony of [social worker 2], social worker, and read the report the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. Ms. [social worker 2] admits that she ignored many of the information contained in [social worker 1] report. She says that the concerns outlined in the report were discussed with her supervisor.

It was decided that an evaluation would be made by A to see if Ms. B could become X's tutor. Ms. [social worker 2] says that she has been to Ms. B’s house on many occasions and that X is doing well. She states that she did discuss with Ms. B the fact that she calls the child X instead of X and explained to her that the name of the child could not be changed until he was adopted. However, she did know that the child calls M. C “papa”. [ 13 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. B who states that she is committed to care for X.

She affirms that Ms. [social worker 2] knew that she calls the child X, but never asked her to stop. Ms. B explains that she started calling the child X when he was around two months old because many people thought it was a girl’s name. Ms. B says that the child calls her “mamie”, which for her is between a mother and a grandmother. The child calls her son, C, “papa”. When asked if she would accept to participate in a therapy, Ms.

B answered that she does not feel the need, but will abide by any conditions ordered by the Court. [ 14 ] The evidence presented reveals that the mother has abandoned her son and that a permanent plan must be established for the child.

[ 15 ] X has been living with Ms. B since he was five week old and is attached to her. However, the home environment presents with many difficulties. First of all, the dynamic in the home currently leads the child to believe that Ms. B is his grandmother and that Mr. C is his father. Secondly, on the one hand, Ms. B says that she wishes for her son to take is own apartment, but on the other hand, seems to realise that her son is not in a position to care for himself. [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to the care of Ms. B until May 1st, 2013.

This period of time will allow DYP to further evaluate Ms. B’s home and to address in detail the concerns outlined in the adoption assessment, including the child’s name and the family dynamics. [ 17 ] The Court is astonished that none of the difficulties mentioned in the report of Ms. [social worker 1] were ever raised in the reports filed by A since 2010. In fact, these reports do not even mention Mr. C nor his difficulties. [ 18 ] The question in the present file is whether Ms.

B is in a position to answer not only to the child's basic needs, but also if she has the parental capacity to answer to his emotional and psychological needs. In other words, is it is in the child's best interest to remain in this home on a permanent basis, taking into account the family dynamics and Mr.

C's presence. [ 19 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 20 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 23 ] EXTENDS the order rendered October 12, 2011; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of Ms. B until May 1, 2013; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of Ms.

B remain confidential towards the mother and the extended family members; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection A will assess Ms B's home; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be prohibited; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign all consents and authorizations regarding the child; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS strongly that Ms. B participate in therapeutic services and ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to help Ms. B obtain the necessary services; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection meet with Ms. B and Mr.

C on a regular basis, in order to address the concerns outlined in the adoption assessment report; [ 31 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child until May 1, 2013; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 33 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. Signed October 23, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pauline Laforce Counsel for the child Date of hearing: September 24, 2012