2013 QCCQ 19707, 2013 QCCQ 19707

Protection de la jeunesse — 138340 2013 QCCQ 19707 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004235-126 760-41-004344-126 DATE: December 6, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...], 2011 Y Born : [...], 2012 Children THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions for the extension of decisions concerning the siblings X and Y, born

respectively on [...], 2011 and [...], 2012. [ 2 ] The motions allege that the children's situations justify an extension of protective measures, notably as the parents fail to work towards the rehabilitation of their parental capacities, as well as showing little investment in view of sustaining a bond. [ 3 ] The Director recommends that protective measures continue for a period of six months, primarily that the children remain in foster care in view of the elaboration of an alternative life plan. [ 4 ] Context [ 5 ] The implication of the Director of Youth Protection commences in April 2012, in regards to the situation of X.

In reason of a situation of serious risk of neglect and psychological ill treatment (parental conflict), a provisional order ensues on April 19 th entrusting the child to foster care and providing the supervision of the parent's visitation. [ 6 ] On August 23, 2012, the Court confirms a situation of endangerment and pursues the protective measures for 6 months, towards the goal of a return of X in her family environment. [ 7 ] The parent's personal issues remain a significant impediment to their abilities to attend to the requirements of the intervention: conjugal violence, drug issues and instability.

They are inconsistent as to their visits with their child. [ 8 ] Y is born on [...] 2012 and resides in foster care since his discharge from the hospital, two days later. [ 9 ] On November 19, 2012, the Court declares a situation of endangerment in reason of a serious risk of neglect and protective measures ensue for 6 months, maintaining Y in foster care and ordering the supervision of the contacts with his parents, always towards the goal of his return in the family environment. [ 10 ] The parents separate in March 2013, a situation that marks a divergence in their respective implication in the measures. [ 11 ] Since the separation, the father ceases all contacts, either with the children or with protective services. [ 12 ] On the other hand, the mother's involvement becomes more tangible.

She is more available for the visitation periods, which occur on a weekly basis, for one hour. She declares her intention to be consistent as to the children and implicate herself actively in measures destined to improve her parenting skills.

She projects progressing towards the reintegration of the children to her care. [ 13 ] The objectives are specific; that the mother demonstrates her ability to regularly attend visits with her children and continue her meetings with the CLSC as to her parenting skills, while cooperating with the intervention. [ 14 ] On June 4, 2013, within the Director's request for extension of the measures for both children, the parties agree to interim measures in order to verify the parent's abilities to become active participants in the measures and work towards the rehabilitation of their parental roles.

The parties consign their admissions to the Court file and admit the continued situation of endangerment. Both parents are present and declare their intention to implicate themselves in any measures put forth by the Director of Youth Protection, in view of correcting the situation. [ 15 ] The situation evolves arduously. The father still refuses to participate in the intervention and continues to have no contacts with his children. The mother makes certain efforts, but is unable to maintain her implication.

Contacts are regularly missed. [ 16 ] The mother shows substantial deficiencies as to her parental capacities, although her affection for the children is undeniable. Notwithstanding, the evidence demonstrates that the bond with her children, especially Y, is not invested. The children have reactions during and after the contact periods, which intensify over time. [ 17 ] Progressively, the mother's implication wanes appreciably on all levels. [ 18 ] Since September 2013, only one contact is held between the mother and X. The child shows discomfort in her mother's presence and rejects signs of affection.

Following the visit, she shows reactions for a few days (proximity, sadness, aggressiveness, nightmares, physical symptoms). [ 19 ] Analysis and decision [ 20 ] As of April 2012, the parents benefit from the aid and services of the Director of Youth Protection, in view of rehabilitating their respective situations and the subsequent return of their children to their care.

Despite these measures, the evidence testifies to their lack of investment and inaction in responding to the situation justifying the application of protective measures. [ 21 ] In the interim, both children are evolving positively in their respective milieus and present developments consistent with their ages. They form a secure attachment to their foster families. [ 22 ] The father's absence from the intervention his lack of investment in his children, permit the Court to conclude to abandonment.

His failure to participate in his children's lives results in the severing of the bond existing with X, and to his occupying no significant role as to his son Y. [ 23 ] The mother shows more implication, but she remains unable to meet the requirements of her children, which are to develop in a stable, secure and emotionally available environment. [ 24 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the children remain in danger and that it is appropriate that they continue to benefit from the application of protective measures.

The measures put forth by the Director of Youth Protection reflect the children's best interests.

[ 25 ] The Court calculates the expiration of the maximum delays of placement of the law.

Although a possible evolution of the parent's situations remains conceivable, the evidence presented, in conjunction with the period of placement to date, justify that the Director move forward with the elaboration of a permanency plan for the children and the undersigned takes act of this intention as corresponding to the children's best interests. [ 26 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family; [ 30 ] TAKES ACT of the intention to maintained both children in their respective foster homes for the duration of the measures; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents report at regular intervals to the Director to inform of their current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection and to be conditional to 3 meetings with the Director to assess her personal situation as well as her degree of involvement; [ 35 ] FORBIDS any contact between the children and their family; [ 36 ] Should the mother fail to respond to request to this effect within 48 hours: [ 37 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign the authorizations required for medical, recreational, or travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 38 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the father and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign the authorizations required for medical, recreational, or travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 39 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will elaborate an alternate life plan for the children; [ 40 ] ALL THESE MESURES for a period of 6 months; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Claudette Morin Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Dates of hearing: June 4, 2013 (X), December 6, 2013