2022 QCCQ 6382, 2022 QCCQ 6382

Protection de la jeunesse — 222318 2022 QCCQ 6382 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000882-180 DATE: April 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A Applicant and X, born on […], 2018 Child and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court has before it an application to review and extend a decision rendered on August 30, 2021, concerning the situation of the child X. The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child’s security and development are still in danger and require the extension of the measures to put an end to the situation of endangerment. [ 2 ] In early September, the child started a gradual reintegration with her parents.

The full reintegration was completed on December 25, 2021. The Director asks that the child remain with the parents with support measures and follow-up with the Director until October 31, 2022. [ 3 ] The parents admitted most of the allegations of the application. They also agree with the measures sought by the Director. The Court also has before it an application to intervene filed by the child’s former foster family, C, to be declared a party to the hearing under

section 81, paragraph 4, of the Youth Protection Act ( YPA ). [ 4 ] The mother, the father, and the child’s counsel disagree that Ms. C should be granted the status of party. The Director also contests this intervention. They all take the position that the application should not be granted because the criteria accepted by the jurisprudence are not met. [ 5 ] The Court rendered an oral decision and dismissed the application under

section 81, paragraph 4, YP A. [ 6 ] Ms. C asked the Court to be heard as an interested person under

section 81, paragraph 3, YPA . She would like to maintain regular contact with the child, as she is an important person to her. She requested minimal contact of one weekend per month. [ 7 ] The parents disagree with this request. The mother stated that the child will be confused, and she is worried for her safety because she believes the child was sexually touched by another child under the care of Ms. C. The father is willing to maintain the bond between his daughter and Ms. C but is of the opinion that the parents must make their own decision regarding contact.

ISSUES − Should the Court maintain contact between C and the child? − If so, what will be the nature, frequency, and terms of such contact?

THE FACTS [ 8 ] The child is a three-year-old girl. She is described as a dynamic little girl who likes books. [ 9 ] The child was entrusted to Ms. C in Town A, where she had been placed since February 26, 2019. [ 10 ] The child has developed a significant bond with Ms. C, who was her caregiver when she was between 10 months and 3 ½ years old. [ 11 ] When the child was born, the mother was 16 years old and was being followed by youth protection. Before being placed under the care of Ms.

C, the child lived with numerous foster families and had moved many times. [ 12 ] On August 30, 2021, the Honourable Éric Hamel ordered that a reintegration plan be now put in place and that the child gradually return to her parents’ care as soon as the situation allows it, but not less than a period of three months.

He also recommended that the child maintain regular contact with C after being reintegrated with the parents. [ 13 ] As stated earlier, the reintegration process started in September 2021 but due to the pandemic situation, a lockdown was ordered and between October 21 and November 17, 2021, the child remained with her foster family. [ 14 ] On November 17, 2021, the reintegration process resumed until December 25, 2021. [ 15 ] The Director reported that the child has adapted well and that the reintegration process has been positive for her.

The youth protection worker performed unannounced home visits to the parents’ house and to the grandmother’s house and observed that the child has been doing well. She was dressed, clean, and in a good mood during the visits. She was able to see a positive bond between the child, her parents, and her little brother. [ 16 ] On December 25, 2021, the last day of the reintegration, Ms. C was supposed to bring the child back to her grandmother’s house at 9:00 a.m. with her belongings to spend Christmas with her family.

The mother called the on-call youth protection worker because her daughter had not returned. [ 17 ] The youth protection worker was able to bring the child back at 5:00 p.m. She observed that the child was really excited to see everyone and ran into the house to hug them. [ 18 ] Following the reintegration, the parents do not want to stay in contact with Ms. C, nor does X. [ 19 ] The youth protection worker recommended maintaining contact with Ms. C as she is an important person in X’s life. The mother expressed some concerns about the fact that Ms. C speaks with the child only in French.

She added that her daughter does not call her “A” and that she is losing her culture. [ 20 ] Both parents feel that Ms. C was invasive and takes up too much space in their child’s life. She took some initiative like bringing food to their door without their request. She also goes to the parents’ house without an invitation. The mother feels that Ms. C does not respect her role as mother. She does not respect their boundaries. [ 21 ] Ms. C claims that she has been supportive of X’s full return to her parents’ care.

She believes the process was too fast and she had concerns about the parents’ ability to provide an environment that would allow the child to develop well. She also believes that the sudden disruption of the bond between her and the child will impact the child’s development and well-being. [ 22 ] Regarding the concerns expressed by the mother that the child had been sexually touched by another child in the foster family, the applicant, Ms. [social worker 1], stated that this situation was investigated and the facts are unfounded.

ANALYSIS [ 23 ] The parents were transparent and quite cooperative during the assessment period. Even though the reintegration process went well, the parents’ situation is still fragile. Currently, they are separated but they maintain good communication. [ 24 ] The Director recommends that the parents receive social services and counselling to help them adjust to their role of having two young children full-time under their care. [ 25 ] One of the concerns is the parents’ precarious financial situation.

They could benefit from social services where they will receive support and may be referred for resources if needed. [ 26 ] The Director’s involvement is still required in this family to ensure that the child will be in a safe, secure, and stable environment. Application to maintain contact with C [ 27 ] With regard to the Court’s jurisdiction to decide this application, the Court refers to

section 91 in fine of the YPA : The tribunal may include several measures in the same order, provided those measures are consistent with each other and in the interest of the child. It may thus authorize that personal relations between the child and the child’s parents, grandparents or another person be maintained , in the manner determined by the tribunal; it may also provide for more than one environment to which the child may be entrusted and state how long the child is to stay in each of those environments. [Emphasis added.]

[ 28 ] The Court may authorize that personal relations be maintained between another person separate from a family member. Obviously, as all other measures ordered under the YPA , the Court must be convinced that it is in the best interest of the child. The main question is to determine whether this application is in the best interest of the child. [ 29 ] Ms. C was present on a daily basis during a period of three years, when the child was between 10 months and 3 ½ years old. This period is particularly important for the child’s development.

She has developed an attachment bond with her caregiver. [ 30 ] An attachment bond makes it possible to develop a high self-esteem because the child feels loved and builds a relationship of trust with the adult caregiver. On the contrary, a disruption of bonding can cause the child to experience stress, insecurity, and a feeling of abandonment. [ 31 ] In the present case, there is no specific evidence that the child has been impacted by the absence of contact with Ms. C.

Nevertheless, sometimes the consequences are not perceivable but will appear later in the child’s life. [ 32 ] There are many concerns regarding the decision to maintain contact with Ms. C: − The impact of the disruption of bonding for the child; − The child’s cultural identity. Ms. C speaks French and is not an […] woman. The child has returned to the parents who speak English and language A; − Contact between Ms. C and the child may create a conflict of loyalty between her and the parents. The child may be confused by the multiple caregivers; − The tension between the parents and Ms.

C who takes up too much space in the view of the mother, who does not feel respected in her role; [ 33 ] The Court would like to recall that the primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child rests with his parents. [1] [ 34 ] A foster family in the youth protection system has the specific responsibility to be the caregiver of a child who needs protection for a certain period in his or her life. [ 35 ] The Court recognizes the involvement of Ms. C in the first years of the child’s life.

She loves the child and took good care of her. [ 36 ] All foster families must act in this manner without having any hope to obtain rights in the future towards the child. [ 37 ] According to those principles, even if it is difficult for the foster mother to “turn the page” or mourn her bond with the child, this feeling will not be part of the Court’s consideration. The sole consideration will be the best interest of the child. [ 38 ] The Court is of the opinion that the minimal contact of one weekend per month is clearly not appropriate.

Such period of contact will impact the child’s process to reclaim her cultural identity, her maternal language, and her […] way of life. [ 39 ] Moreover, the Court believes that if it is in the best interest of the child to maintain contact with her former foster family, it should be for a transient period and with a view to ensuring that the break in contact will not affect her development. [ 40 ] Counsel for the Director recommends that the situation be assessed by a psychologist.

Counsel for the child agrees with this recommendation. [ 41 ] Having considered the need to make a decision in the best interest of the child, the only way to make the right decision is to order a psychological assessment to determine whether the child could be impacted by the break in contact after the period of reintegration with her parents. [ 42 ] The Court emphasizes the importance of the parents’ opinion regarding the persons with whom their child maintains a relationship.

Some of their concerns are serious and cannot be set aside. [ 43 ] Nevertheless, the particular situation of this child, who has a significant bond with her foster mother, requires an objective decision without any emotional interference. The mother is overwhelmed by her own feelings and is not in a position to evaluate the impact of the decision on her child’s development. [ 44 ] The interest of X, a child who has had a difficult course of life since her birth, should be the sole consideration for all the adults around her.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 45 ] GRANTS the application; [ 46 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [ … ], 2018, are still in danger; [ 47 ] MAINTAINS the child with her mother A; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her father as soon as his situation is stabilized ;

[ 49 ] ORDERS that the child ’ s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child ’ s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the child continue to receive specific health care and health services, including speech therapy, physiotherapy, and a regular health routine ; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the child attend a childcare or a kindergarten establishment; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the child and the child ’ s family receive the services of an external educator; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 56 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services concerning their personal issues; [ 57 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling, or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 59 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2022; As for the application to intervene filed by the child’s former foster family: [ 60 ] ORDERS a psychological assessment of the child to determine whether the absence of contact with the foster mother could affect her or her development; [ 61 ] AUTHORIZES that the personal relationship between the child and C be permitted if recommended by the psychologist and based on the frequency, terms, and duration recommended by the professional; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection supervise and determine contact, taking into consideration the psychological assessment and the recommendations made; [ 63 ] RECOMMENDS that the Director of Youth Protection inform C of the Court’s decision to order a psychological assessment of the child and of her rights to have contact according to the recommendations of the psychologist.

Signed in Town C on June 6, 2022 __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q. Mtre Nada Boumeftah For the child Mtre Geneviève Apollon For the applicant Mtre Gabrielle Francoeur For the mother Mtre Ève Laoun For the father Dates of hearing: April 20, 2022 April 21, 2022