2011 QCCQ 6500, 2011 QCCQ 6500

Protection de la jeunesse — 111486 2011 QCCQ 6500 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001320-107 DATE: March 3, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A C.Y.P.C., working in town A, district A Applicant v.

A, residing and domiciled in town A, district A, province of Québec Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is submitted with a petition to declare the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2008, in danger in regards to paragraphs

a) and

e) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The mother, Ms. A, is present and represented by Me Jean-Claude Latraverse. She does not contest the petition and agrees with the placement of the child for a period of twelve (12) months. However, she asks to have regular visiting rights with her daughter with a view to have her child back eventually. [ 3 ] The mother admits all the allegations of the petition. The admissions show a situation of abandonment by the mother. On January 15, 2010, the mother gave the child through traditional adoption. The adoptive parents gave up the child on March 22, 2010.

On April 1, 2010, the child was placed in foster care. [ 4 ] The mother also acknowledges that the father often hit the child during their common life. The mother witnessed the father hitting the baby regularly. [ 5 ] On March 2010, the mother signed a general consent for adoption. This consent was not valid because the biological mother was no longer the legal mother.

The traditional adoption signed on January 15, 2010 had not been revoked. [ 6 ] On November 12, 2010, a new consent for adoption was signed by both the biological and the adoptive mothers. [ 7 ] The birth certificate provided by the Register of Civil Status, issued on November 26, 2010, indicates Ms. A as the mother while the father is undeclared. [ 8 ] The Court does not understand how the Register of Civil Status can confirm a new filiation in favour of the biological mother after traditional adoption. Despite this remark, the Court must consider the birth certificate in terms of

section 523 of the Civil Code of Quebec . " 523. Paternal filiation and maternal filiation are proved by the act of birth, regardless of the circumstances of the child's birth." [ 9 ] Since the filiation is not contested, the Court considers the maternal filiation mentioned in the birth certificate. [ 10 ] The child has a health problem. She has breath holding spells and seizures on a regular basis. On account of her health condition, the child was placed in many different foster families. [ 11 ] The mother has not seen her daughter since April 1, 2010.

In fact, up to the hearing, she maintained that she wanted her to be adopted. [ 12 ] At the hearing, the mother changes her mind and decides to ask for contacts and visits with her daughter. It is the first time, according to the petitioner, that the mother expresses her wish to revoke her consent for adoption.

[ 13 ] Despite this change in the child's situation, the evidence shows that the mother failed to provide for the child's care, maintenance and education for a period of over one (1) year. [ 14 ] The Court must declare that the security and development of the child are considered to be in danger because the child was abandoned pursuant to paragraph a) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act and physically abused by the biological father, pursuant to paragraph e) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 15 ] The need for foster care is not contested by the mother. She agrees to placement. She wishes to bond with her daughter during this period. [ 16 ] The only issue is to decide on the length of the placement in the child’s best interest. [ 17 ] The situation of this child is particular because she is very vulnerable. According to the Social Report, the child's health condition is a psychological reaction intended to get people's attention. She needs stability for the seizures to decrease. [ 18 ] In fact, the child changed foster families many times in the last year.

She was first placed on January 8, 2010. Then, she was placed in three (3) different foster families from January 8 to January 15, 2010. Later in January, she was adopted traditionally by a family member, whom, after only two (2) months, gave up to adopt the child. [ 19 ] Between March 30 and April 21, 2010, the child experienced eight (8) different foster families. All these foster families were uncomfortable with the child's health problem.

They were afraid of the breath holding spell syndrome's reaction. [ 20 ] Since April 21, 2010, the child has been placed in a non-Inuit foster family who is willing to take care of her on a long-term basis. She is stable in this foster family and she shows signs of attachment to the foster mother. [ 21 ] It is obvious from the evidence that the child needs stability. Her health condition is improving with the stable routine. The seizure episodes have become less frequent. The overall behaviour of the child has significantly improved.

She has become more confident and she is able to play with other children without showing signs of aggressiveness. [ 22 ] The Court must consider the very sad history of this little girl. Ever since the beginning of her life, she had been treated like an object, not a human being. If you are not satisfied with the product because of its imperfection, you can send it back to the company. This is the picture of her young life, considering her health condition.

It is certainly not the appropriate way to protect her. [ 23 ] The Youth Protection Act mentions the maximum foster care period for a young child if the Court orders a foster care measure under

section 91.1 of the Law. For a child between two and five years of age, the total foster care period may not exceed eighteen (18) months. This child has been placed in foster care for over twelve (12) months.

This period must be considered when determining the length of the foster care measure. [ 24 ] A life project for this child is a priority to ensure stability and to meet the young girl’s particular needs. [ 25 ] The placement period will be six (6) months to prepare a life project for her. [ 26 ] Concerning the contacts between the child and her mother, they will be closely monitored by the Director of Youth Protection to make sure they are positive for the child. The psychological well-being of the child must be the priority.

Her stability needs to be assured for her best interest considering her health condition.

The Director of Youth Protection will have to supervise the contacts in regards to the frequency, the duration, the place and the need for a third person to be present. [ 27 ] FOR ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child X, born on [...] 2008, is in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in foster care for a period of six (6) months, in order to prepare a life project; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequency, duration, place and the need for a third person to be present; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be granted the authority to sign for all medical, educational and travel purposes; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her mother; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this enactment;

__________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. Me Jean-Claude Latraverse For the child and the mother Me Robert-André Adam For the applicant Date of hearing: January 27, 2011