2018 QCCQ 20508, 2018 QCCQ 20508

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811613 2018 QCCQ 20508 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001931-150 DATE: November 2, 2018 (written judgment rendered on February 28, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 November 2, 2017, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family chosen by an institution operating a child and youth protection centre until September 30, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and recommends that she be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. C and Mr. D until the child reaches her majority. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She admits that the security and development of the child are still in danger and agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Léonard. He has the same position as the mother. [ 5 ] The child is absent but represented by Me Neptune. The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested being in her best interest. Historical situation [ 6 ] On March 2, 2015 , the police found the mother laying unconscious in the snow highly intoxicated with X (3 months old) in her amautik (traditional Inuit coat). In the same month, X was entrusted to Mr. D and Ms.

C a foster family in Town A. On September 18, 2015, the Court declare the security and development of X in danger and entrusted her to a foster family until March 18, 2016. The Court also ordered a medical follow-up regarding her genetic condition and ordered that the actual foster family be evaluated as a life plan for the child. [ 7 ] On March 17, 2016 , Justice Gravel revised the decision. The Court noted that the parents still have alcohol consumption issues and they did not seek help through Social Services. The father saw the child only once in one year.

The child had a bone fracture and a genetic fragility is suspected. The father refused to provide a blood sample to confirm this possible diagnostic. The child was in the same foster family and the Court order that she stay there for one year. [ 8 ] On March 29, 2017 , the child was still with the same foster family and the parents’ situation remained the same. But as the life plan was not completed, the Court prolonged the placement and entrusted the child for another year to a foster family. [ 9 ] On November 2, 2017 , Justice Beauchemin revised the decision.

The Court noted that the parents did not have contact with their daughter since 2016. They had another child and the mother was pregnant. They stopped drinking since the beginning of the pregnancy, but they did not seek help regarding their personal issues. The child was still with the same foster family and she was doing very well. The DYP raised some concerns regarding health issues for X and a DNA test from the parents would be required. The parents

gave their consent but did not take steps to be tested at the A hospital. The foster family was still waiting to be evaluated by the CIUSSS A. The Court insisted on the importance to conclude this evaluation shortly because, as for now the child is in standby, a precious time is lost and it’s an unnecessary stress for the parents and the foster parents. [ 10 ] On September 7, 2018 , the revision hearing was postponed because of the lack of time. Analysis [ 11 ] For the previous hearing (November 2, 2017), the child went in Town B with the foster family.

A first 90-minute contact with the parents was organized and X slowly created bonds with her biological mother. X was very nervous at the beginning, but the parents respected her pace. Another visit was planned before the foster family’s departure, but the parents cancelled it. [ 12 ] Another visit occurred between June 18 and June 21, 2018. The mother was very happy to see her daughter and previous her arrival, she called the DYP worker to make sure everything is well organized.

X was more comfortable with her parents and called them Anana and Atata (Mum and Dad in Inuktitut). [ 13 ] On September 5, 2018, X and her foster father arrived in Town B for the revision hearing. Contact between her, her parents and her siblings was planned but due to a funeral in her brother’s foster family, she was not able to see him. A short contact with her parents took place at the Court house, and it went very well.

The parents were very happy to see their daughter. [ 14 ] The report describes the involvement of the parents in their daughter’s life as follows: Despite the fact that the parents don’t actively ask for updates regarding their child’s development, both the mother and father demonstrate interest regarding their daughter’s situation when information is transmitted by the undersigned. Moreover, the parents also positively agree to give their parental consent for various health and educational needs when required.

Additionally, the parents have positively improved their level of implication regarding contact with their child. [ 15 ] Despite the facts the parents do not have the parental capacities to take care of their daughter on a full-time basis, the DYP worker considers that their involvement in her life is important to maintain a connection with her culture and help her to construct her cultural identity. [ 16 ] The follow-up in Town A is offered by Ms. [Social Worker 2]. She provided a report. She confirms that X is very well integrated in the family of Ms. C and Mr. D. They are very close to each other.

Ms. [Social Worker 2] raise some concerns regarding the health and the development of X. First she spoke about a potential osteogenesis condition suspected by the doctor in August 2015. It was for this reason that the parents should be tested, but since that time no other incident related to the potential bone fragility was observed. [ 17 ] The second concern is regarding her tantrums and her language development. It could be related to the fact that she learns both English and French at the same time, but it could also be related to a potential FASD. A reference to see a speech therapist was requested.

The evaluation for FASD could be done later according to the evolution from the speech therapist. [ 18 ] The foster mother was present at the hearing and explained that X is doing very well at her place. They are very happy to take care of her. She adds that six or seven Inuit children are fostered in her extended family with whom X has frequent contacts. She also goes to Town C to participate in Inuit activities. They travel up to the North from two to three times a year and very agree to continue to come to maintain contacts between X and her parents.

Finally, the family has contact with the foster family of Y who is living in [region A]. Analysis [ 19 ] The parents admit not being able to raise their daughter and that she is well taken care in her foster family. They wish to see her as much as possible and to be maintained informed. [ 20 ] It’s obvious that X is well integrated in the foster family. The foster parents are very involved and concerned by her development. They keep her in contact with her culture by contact with other Inuit children in the region and by participating to Inuit activities in Town C.

It’s in her best interest to be stabilized in a warm and loving environment. Also the Court has no hesitation to grant the placement until majority with Ms. C and Mr. D. [ 21 ] The health and the development of X will have to be closely monitored. Despite the long-term placement, the DYP has to be closely present to make sure that all the concerns are addressed in a timely manner. [ 22 ] The Court encourages the parents to keep contact with their daughter by frequent communication by phone or video call or by any other way.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are still in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. C and Mr. D until she reaches the age of majority; [ 26 ] ORDER that the child be evaluated by a speech therapist and all recommendations be followed; [ 27 ] ORDER that the potential FASD be evaluated as soon as it would be possible to be done according to the medical opinion and all recommendations be followed;

[ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES access between the child and the parents by phone, video calls or any other way; [ 32 ] TAKES AKNOLEDGE that the foster family is welling to maintain contact with the parents and with the Inuit culture; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2032. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 2, 2018