2015 QCCQ 12772, 2015 QCCQ 12772

Protection de la jeunesse — 152608 2015 QCCQ 12772 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000646-141 DATE: July 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...] [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at [...]in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] at Town B , district A (Quebec) [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on November 26, 2014. On that date the Court maintains that the security or development of the child is still compromised pursuant to the law. As one of the measures, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family for a period of five months. [ 2 ] The applicant states that the review and extension of the decision are necessary for different reasons enumerated in her application.

The mother's personal situation has not been improving at all. The Director is still in the process of integrating the child in a long-term foster family. As one of the measures the applicant asks the Court to entrust the child to a foster family for a period of five months. [ 3 ] The mother is absent but represented by counsel. According to Me Ouellette his client is in a very bad situation. It was very difficult to have a telephone conversation with her because she seemed very weak.

She stated also that she had no transportation to come to Court. [ 4 ] However the counsel states that he has received a clear mandate from his client to represent her. He agrees with the applicant's recommendations for the child. [ 5 ] The applicant explains to the Court that she has discussed last week with the mother about the present motion. She offered her transportation as she always did. The mother was supposed to call her if she needed one.

The applicant tried to reach the mother this morning unsuccessfully. [ 6 ] The child is also represented by counsel. [ 7 ] Me Lemire represents the Director of Youth Protection. The facts [ 8 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 9 ] On April 20, 2015 the Court entrusts the child to a foster family for a maximum period of 30 days. [ 10 ] The transition of the child to a long-term foster family did not go well. [ 11 ] The child is one year old. She is developing very well. [ 12 ] The child lived the transition to a long-term foster family with a certain difficulty.

She lived panic, insecurity and stress. The transition period was extended to help the child reduce her insecurity. After the transition period the child lived nine days with this family before reintegrating her initial foster home. [ 13 ] When she came back in her initial foster family the child displayed unusual behaviours like crying during the night, needing the

presence of the foster mother, etc. After three or four days those behaviours stopped. [ 14 ] After one month another transition was tried toward a second long-term foster home. The contacts between the child and this foster family were easier. [ 15 ] The transition of the child in this foster family is still not completed. The child goes very well. [ 16 ] The mother was fully informed about the child's situation and her transfer in two different foster families.

She agrees with a long-term placement of her child and wishes stability and a permanent family for her. [ 17 ] There were few contacts (four contacts) between the mother and her child even though a calendar was ordered by the Court. The mother admits having difficulty to motivate herself to visit her child. Many weeks have separated mother-child visits. The mother loves her child and has beautiful moments with her during the visits but she cannot give her stability and regularity. [ 18 ] The mother acknowledges that her lifestyle is not appropriate for her child.

She admits still consuming drugs on a regular basis. Drug consumption seems the major reason of quarrels with her spouse. [ 19 ] The mother's physical health is very preoccupying. She has lost a lot of weight and displays many open wounds all over her body including her face. [ 20 ] During the visits the mother and the child demonstrate to each other a lot of affection, which includes an exchange of fluids. This is very preoccupying as the mother's health condition is unknown because she does not have any medical follow-up. [ 21 ] A two hours visit as ordered by the Court is too much for her.

Her physical and psychological health are not good at all. For instance, she does not have the strength to move the child by herself and she needs the applicant's help. [ 22 ] Her personal situation is also very bad. She still uses drugs and goes to food banks to feed herself. Her spouse has lost her job.

Decision [ 23 ] There were very few mother-child contacts even though a calendar and the Court ordered a minimum contact regime. [ 24 ] In November 2014, these measures were ordered because the mother for the first time in her life put herself into action, complete a treatment for alcohol and drug abuse and started to visit her child more regularly. It did not last. [ 25 ] The mother's situation is worst than it was on November 26, 2014. [ 26 ] The situation is very preoccupying as for the mother-child contacts. The Court is preoccupied by the child's safety.

As the mother's health condition is unknown the child is at risk to get a disease. [ 27 ] To ensure the child's safety the Court must impose to the mother conditions before exercising her access rights. The mother will have to undergo a complete medical assessment and allows the doctor to disclose to the Director of Youth Protection the results of this assessment.

The medical assessment is a prerequisite to the exercise of her access rights. [ 28 ] As the medical assessment's result is disclosed to the Director of Youth Protection and approved as safe for the child then the access rights will have to be exercised once a month in accordance with the doctor's recommendations if they are such. The access rights will be under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection as for length, modalities and in the presence of a third party if judged necessary. [ 29 ] The maximum delay set in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act will end very soon. Then the Court will have to « make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis » [1] . [ 30 ] The child continues her development in the foster family that she recently integrates, although this integration is not completed. [ 31 ] For these reasons the Court grants five additional months to help the Director of Youth Protection to support the child and the long-term family in their adaptations.

The Court takes judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection will present very soon a permanent life project for the child. [ 32 ] Considering the evidence as a whole the Court concludes that the security or development of the child is still endangered pursuant to the law and that the applicant's recommendations for the measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the child's best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 33 ] Grants the motion; [ 34 ] Reviews and extends the orders; [ 35 ] Maintains that the security or development of X , born on [...] is still compromised pursuant to the law; [ 36 ] Orders the following measures for a period of five months; [ 37 ] Entrusts the child in a foster family; [ 38 ] Orders that a person working for an establishment or an organism provides help, advice or assistance to the mother, the child

and the foster family; [ 39 ] Orders that the mother be sober during the visits; [ 40 ] Orders the mother to play an active

part in the present measures; [ 41 ] Withdraws from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding medical care and authorizations as well as health services and grants the exercise of the said attributes to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 42 ] Orders that the mother-child access rights be the following: • The mother's medical assessment is a prerequisite to exercise her access rights; • Recommends the mother to undergo a complete medical assessment before exercising her access rights; • Recommends the mother to authorize the doctor to disclose the result of the medical assessment to the Director of Youth Protection.

After the said disclosure the access rights will be once a month and exercised following the Doctor's recommendations, under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, length, modalities and in the presence of a third party; [ 43 ] Takes judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection will present at the end of the present measures a life plan project for the child; [ 44 ] Takes judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection has received the register life birth and Orders the Director of Youth Protection to filed in this court file the birth certificate as soon as possible; [ 45 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 46 ] Entrusts the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the child Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 7, 2015