2019 QCCQ 15592, 2019 QCCQ 15592

Protection de la jeunesse — 194983 2019 QCCQ 15592 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [ … ] TOWN OF [ … ] Youth Division No: 635-41-000625-142 DATE: January 14, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [ … ] , 2011 [ social worker 1 ] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A Applicant and A , unknown address in [ … ] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on April 16, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [ … ] , 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family until January 29, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her mother and that the placement has to be prolonged until [ … ] , 2029 (majority).

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits some of the allegations and she says having no other choice than to agree with the measures as she doesn’t have other options to propose. Me Tommasel tells to the Court that the mother would like to have more contact with the child, especially during the weekend. [ 4 ] X who is 7 years old is present and represented by Me Martineau. She agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 5 ] On December 18, 2014 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 3 years old.

The DYP was involved in her life on and off since 2009, and she was placed in a foster family under voluntary measures. This time, the DYP requested a placement until majority under Ms. B’s care. The mother was struggling with alcohol consumption issues, and even though it was very painful to admit, she recognized not being able to take care of her daughter. In 2012, the mother was evicted from her house and this increased her difficulties. Since 2014, X and her siblings are entrusted with Ms. B. The Court declared the security and development in danger [1] and entrusted X with Ms.

Annie B until majority. [ 6 ] On August 8, 2016 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and X was entrusted to a foster family. [ 7 ] On September 12, 2016 , the Court was seized with the revision. X’s oldest sister revealed that she had been sexually abused by Ms. B’s son. This young man had the condition not to reside at his mother’s house. A few days later, Ms. B called the DYP saying that she prefers renouncing to take care of her foster children than to see her son homeless. The situation of the mother did not improve.

The Court entrusts the child in a foster family until June 17, 2017, and ordered a new life plan. [ 8 ] On June 15, 2017 , the Court noted that the situation of the mother remained the same. X was doing very well in her foster family, but as the DYP was not ready to propose a life plan, the Court prolonged the placement until April 29, 2018. [ 9 ] On April 16, 2018 , the evidence showed that even if the mother reduced her alcohol consumption, her personal situation did not get better. She did not participate to all access offered to her with her daughter.

X was still doing very well in her foster family, but the DYP is not ready to offer a life plan. The Court prolonged the placement until January 29, 2019, and ordered a life plan.

Facts [ 10 ] The evidence showed that X, after leaving Ms. B’s house, was entrusted to different foster families before being entrusted to the actual one, the one of Ms. C, on November 11, 2017, in Town A. [ 11 ] The mother is also living in Town A, but she is quite homeless. As the last time, the mother did not take advantage of all the visits offered to her. Sometimes, Ms. C organized access without previous authorization from the DYP. [ 12 ] Ms. C testifies at the hearing. She is living in Town A for four years, and she does not plan to leave [region A]. She has four biological children.

X has a good relation with them and with her nieces and nephews. [ 13 ] Ms. C understand the engagement requested from her and accept it. She has no difficulties with the contacts between X and her mother and she considers very important for X to benefit from those contacts. During the Christmas holidays she went [to region B] with X. She made sure to take the phone number of every family members before living and she gave the phone numbers where X could be reached. [ 14 ] Ms. C has another foster [ … ] child, same age of X. The two children have a good relation, and they speak [language A] together. [ 15 ] Ms.

C make sure to participate in all activities organized in Town A: Festival, Church activities, visits with extended family members, etc. [ 16 ] The mother is very emotional with this situation, but she knows that her daughter is well taken care. She asks to have access with X mostly during the weekend. The DYP worker explains that it’s easier during the week for the supervision, but she is open to make it possible. Analysis [ 17 ] The maximum period of placement is reached since many times and X is stabilized in her actual foster family since November 2017.

It’s urgent that the life plan could be applied. [ 18 ] It’s obvious that Ms. C is able to fulfill the needs of X and she said being very well there. [ 19 ] Despite the fact that any child would be better with his mother, X has the chance to be entrusted to a foster family in the same community with a foster mother who makes sure to keep her in contact with her culture, her language and her biological family members. The Court thanks Ms. C for her involvement. [ 20 ] The mother demonstrates all her love by accepting that her daughter is placed until she reaches her majority.

This decision is probably the most difficult than a mother has to take. Doing so, the mother is conscious of her difficulties and is able to prioritize the interests of her daughter. It’s a decision where the heart and the reason confront each other. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [ … ] , 2011, are still in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. C; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 27 ] ENCOURAGES the mother to continue her follow-up with the Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision and that the possibility to have access during the weekend is evaluated; [ 29 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and GRANTS them to Ms.

C regarding education, health, travel, passport and extracurricular activities; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE until [ … ] , 2029.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 14, 2019