2012 QCCQ 18176, 2012 QCCQ 18176

Protection de la jeunesse — 127562 2012 QCCQ 18176 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN […] Youth Division DATE: November 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: N°: 635-41-000343-100 X , born on […], 2006 ______________________________________________________________________ A Mother and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , authorized member of the Director’s staff for A Centre Petitioner ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON REVISION (Section 95 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is a petition pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] , concerning X, 6 years old. The Director is making an application for a six-month foster care placement in order to clarify a life project for the youth. ISSUES RAISED: [ 2 ] When the revision report was drafted, the mother expressed the wish to regain custody of her daughter. At the hearing, she agreed with a placement for six (6) months, but expressed that it should be aimed at an eventual return with her, not to prepare a life project.

THE FACTS: [ 3 ] On March 27, 2012, Judge Louis Legault ordered a placement for six (6) months in a foster home, with potential reintegration with the mother “if the situation of the mother so warrants”. [ 4 ] On April 27, 2012, the mother left City A to go to City B , escaping from her violent boyfriend.

She came back a month later, on May 30, 2012. [ 5 ] In June 2012, the child had to be transferred to another foster family because the latter moved to [province A]. [ 6 ] The police had to intervene at least on three occasions concerning the mother, on June 30, July 11 and July 27, 2012, always in circumstances where the mother was intoxicated by alcohol. [ 7 ] The mother also had irregular contacts with her child. [ 8 ] The situation of the mother did not allow the child to be returned to her during the six-month placement.

ANALYSIS: [ 9 ] On March 27, instead of granting the application made by the Director for a placement until majority, Judge Louis Legault gave the mother a chance to prove that she could resume care for her child by allowing six more months of placement in the foster family, with the possibility of reintegration. [ 10 ] Unfortunately, the leeway given by Judge Legault did not improve the mother’s situation. She continued to display the same alcohol problems, serious enough for the police to intervene three times. Her contacts with X were once more irregular, and she did not respect the scheduled visits.

She had to leave for City B for one month because of a violent boyfriend. She does not have a stable life. The Court observes that, over the last six months, the mother has been a parent only on a part-time basis. [ 11 ] There was some concern about the previous foster family moving back to [province A]: the child would be separated from her family and her region of A. But since July, she has been placed in an Inuit foster family, at Mrs. B ’s place. The mother agreed with the choice of that family. The child adapted very well to the transfer to her new foster family.

[ 12 ] There were many occasions for the mother to have her daughter with her in the past six months, and even before, but she does not take regular advantage of these possibilities. That is why the report says that her actions led the Director to believe that her attachment to her daughter is limited to the role of a part-time mother. [ 13 ] X has been placed in foster homes for more than 24 months now, since July 2010. She is at an age where she needs stability in her life and also to live in an environment free from alcohol and violence, which is not the case at her mother’s home.

Returning X with the mother would place her at risk of being neglected. [ 14 ] The current foster family, where the child integrated very well and developed positive ties, expressed a commitment to get involved with X on a long-term basis.

This project has to be clarified and this is why a short period of placement will be ordered for six (6) months. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion. [ 17 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered by Judge Louis Legault on March 27, 2012. [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the Youth X, born on […], 2006, all still in danger. [ 19 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in a foster family chosen by the Director, for a period of six (6) months, in order to clarify a life project for the child. [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child, the mother and the foster family take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered. [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother work on her personal issues, namely but not restrictively on her alcohol abuse issue. [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the child and her mother, to be supervised by the D.Y.P., as to the terms and conditions. [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counselling an assistance to the mother and to the child for a period of six (6) months. [ 24 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this judgment. [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present judgment. __________________________________ CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault For the petitioner Me Myriame Gaudreault For the youth Me Jacques Stuart For the mother Date of hearing: September 18, 2012