2023 QCCQ 8862, 2023 QCCQ 8862

Protection de la jeunesse — 235128 2023 QCCQ 8862 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 550-41-003984-208 DATE: September 27 th , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X , born on […], 2020 Child and A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 and 75, 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 ] On November 3 rd , 2020, this Court found the security and development of the child to be endangered because of a serious risk of neglect (failure to provide the child with appropriate supervision or support), a serious risk of physical abuse, and psychological ill- treatment.

The Court entrusted the child to the kinship foster family of the maternal grandfather and his spouse, where he remains to this day. [ 2 ] In the last ruling, rendered on June 28 th , 2022, the undersigned ordered that the child be maintained with the kindship foster family for a short-term period (four months), considering the mother’s progress and stability. [ 3 ] In early October 2022, the Director presents a motion for revision and extension.

However, several delays are encountered before the hearing finally takes place on September 15 th , 2023. [ 4 ] The Director recommends entrusting the child to the kinship foster family of the maternal grandfather and his spouse until he reaches majority.

She further recommends that contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties, and that contacts between the child and his father be supervised and determined by agreement between the parties. [ 5 ] The mother disagrees with the Director’s recommendations and asks the Court to order the child’s gradual return under her care. The father is absent, although represented by counsel.

He wishes for the child to be in a safe place, whether it be with the mother or with the maternal grandfather; he also wishes for more visits with the child. [ 6 ] The child’s counsel argues that the security or the development of the child is no longer endangered. She invites the Court to either reject the motion for revision and extension, or to gradually entrust the child to his mother over the course of the next two to three months. [ 7 ] The maternal grandfather’s spouse is present in accordance with the provisions of

section 83 of the Youth Protection Act (Y.P.A.). Although aware of the hearing, the maternal grandfather is absent. He agreed with his spouse that only she would attend the hearing.

ANALYSIS [ 8 ] All agree that the child has been evolving positively under the care of his kinship foster family, where he attends daycare and benefits from a stable routine. [ 9 ]

Section 91.1 of the Y.P.A sets the maximum period for which a child can be entrusted to an alternative living environment.

If, at the expiry of this period, the security or development of the child remains in danger, the Court must make an order that ensures continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 10 ] The Court can disregard the maximum period if the interest of the child demands it, either because it is expected that the child will return to his family environment in the short term, or if there are other serious reasons for doing so. [ 11 ] The expiry of the maximum period (18 months, considering the child’s age) is not contested in this case, as the child has been entrusted to an alternative living environment for now close to three years. [ 12 ] This is not the first time that the Director envisions a long-term placement with the kindship foster family.

As noted in the ruling of June 28 th , 2022: [4] The evidence reveals that the child is thriving under the care of the kinship foster family, who are said to be available to commit for the long term. Indeed, such was the plan envisaged by the Director until shortly before the hearing. [5] The recommendations have changed in favor of a short-time measure, bearing in mind the mother’s progress and stability and the fact that the mother’s friend where she has been staying for the last year is now willing to receive both mother and child on a full- time basis.

The mother is currently visiting the child twice a week, including for a full day. If all continues to go well, the Director envisages to increase visits, including sleepovers. [1] [ 13 ] It is in the context that all parties agreed for the child to be maintained under the kinship foster family for four months. However, because of Court delays, almost a year has gone by since the last ruling. [ 14 ] In the meantime, the mother continued to stabilize her situation and make the required adjustments to put an end to the situation which led to the child being removed from under her care.

She has a stable place of living and has received the recommended services to improve her parental skills. As to substance abuse, she is not using drugs other than cannabis before going to bed, to help her sleep and manage her anxiety. There is no evidence that this impedes her ability to care for the child in any way. [ 15 ] The child currently visits his mother once a week, including a sleepover. Visits are going well. There is strong bon between them and the mother shows good parental abilities. The child is happy to see his mother and in a good mood prior to visits.

Upon returning to the kinship foster family, he talks positively about his mom and the activities they did together. He can, however, be a little testy about his routine for the next day or two. The current

schedule has been in place since late November 2022. [ 16 ] The kinship foster family lives an hour away, and the mother has limited financial means and no vehicle. This limits the mother’s capacity to attend the child’s medical appointments, which are currently taking place near the kinship foster family’s residence. [ 17 ] As to the father, him and his new partner gave birth to a child in July 2022. The baby was entrusted to a foster family and the situation is under evaluation for physical abuse. [ 18 ] The last ruling provides for visits between the child and his father to be supervised and held once a month.

Between March 2022 and December 2022, the father missed all the scheduled visits. Since December 2022, he has been more assiduous and supervised visits are said to be going well. Father and child are in the process of recreating their bond, and the Director recommends that supervision be maintained. No argument has been made to suggest otherwise. [ 19 ] Hence, while an argument can be made that the original motives why this Court found the security and development of the child to be endangered are no longer present in the maternal environment, the same cannot be said in relation to the paternal side.

Rather, the evidence is conclusive that there is a necessity to maintain protection measures and for the Director to remain involved. [ 20 ] The evidence and the circumstances of this case support the conclusion that it is in the child’s interest to disregard the maximum period provided under

Section 91.1 Y.P.A. in favor of a short-term return of the child under the mother’s care, provided such a return is done gradually, with the continued support and involvement of the Director and the kinship foster family. [ 21 ] A gradual return of the child under the mother’s care would allow them to further nourish their bond. The mother has a job and is financially stable. She has also found a daycare for the child, located near her home. She can now afford to take time off from work to take care of the child.

She has good parental abilities and has maintained a strong bond with the child. [ 22 ] The mother readily acknowledges that the child also has a strong bond with the kindship foster family and that a drastic change of environment would not work. She proposes to gradually increase the time the child spends with her, one day at a time, while introducing him to his new daycare. The return should be carefully planed and prepared to ensure that it goes as smoothly as possible.

It is for this reason that the undersigned will delay the start of the reintegration by ten days. [ 23 ] It is important to note that the maternal grandfather and his spouse will remain involved in the child’s life despite his returns under the mother’s care. They are important people in his life to whom he has grown attached. They also offer an important safety net. [ 24 ] The Director will need to provide increased support to the child, the mother and the kinship foster family during this crucial period of transition.

It will be important for the social practitioner to visit the mother’s place of living on a regular basis, to ensure that all goes well. Efforts should also be made so that the child benefits from a similar and stable routine, whether he is in the mother’s

environment or with the kinship foster family. [ 25 ] Finally, as to visits between father and child, they should remain supervised for the time being. The frequency of visits can be increased if the father remains assiduous and the visits are positive for the child, bearing in mind that he will be undergoing an important transition in the coming months. [ 26 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion in part; [ 28 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on June 28 th , 2022; [ 29 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following protection measures :

a) That the child be entrusted to the Kinship foster family of C and D;

b) That the child be gradually returned under the mother’s care, starting October 7 th , 2023, with a view for the return to be completed by January 7 th , 2024;

c) That until such a return is completed, contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties;

d) That once the return under the mother’s care is completed, contacts between the child and the maternal grandfather C and his spouse D be encouraged and determined by agreement between the parties;

e) That the contacts between the child and his father be supervised and determined by agreement between the parties; if no agreement can be found, contacts will take place once a month;

f) That the child receive the specific health care and services required by his condition (medical follow-up for hemophilia);

g) That the parents actively participate in the elaboration and the implementation of the intervention plan, and that they regularly inform the social practitioner of the evolution of their situation;

h) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Integrated Health and Social Services Center provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family for a period of six months; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the father implicate himself in a follow-up for parental abilities; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C.

M e Mélina Cham Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection M e Amélie Samson Counsel for the child M e Émilie Laplante Counsel for the mother M e André Nault Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 15 th , 2023