2012 QCCQ 15540, 2012 QCCQ 15540

Protection de la jeunesse — 12213 JG1942 2012 QCCQ 15540 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 640-41-001420-113 640-41-001421-111 DATE: January 31, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in Town A Applicant -and- X and Y, residing and domiciled in Town A, province of Québec, district A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town A, province of Québec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of two petitions aiming to declare the security and the development of X, born on […], 2003, and Y, born on […], 2006, as being compromised according with

Section 38 a),

b) and

c) of the Youth Protection Act. The applicant recommends that X be entrusted to foster care until she reaches her majority and that Y be entrusted to foster care for a period of six months with different measures of help. [ 2 ] M e Massé represents the children. He states that X knows that her mother has problems and that she agrees with the recommendation. He cannot make any comments regarding Y because of her young age.

The mother is present and represented; she agrees with the recommendation of placement for her children. [ 3 ] In May 2007, it was reported to the Youth Protection that the children were neglected, lacked of supervision and that the mother had an addiction problem. Since then, there has been voluntary measures, Court orders, post orders and agreements concerning this family. [ 4 ] In March 2011, the mother was sober from drugs and alcohol and started to mobilise herself to maintain regular contacts with her children; focusing on them, attending school, being punctual and consistent with the DYP follow-up.

Later on, there was a progressive reintegration of her daughters with sleep-overs. [ 5 ] At the end of June 2011, it was agreed that the mother would have her daughters back on July 1 st , which was done. On July 12, 2011, the mother went to the DYP office and said that she did not want to keep Y any longer because she was too spoiled, but that she will keep X. She had left Y in the parking lot of the Coop. The worker went there and found the child in crisis. The child was then returned to her foster home. The mother explained that Y was to difficult, then she gets angry and smokes marijuana to feel happier.

She also explained that she was abused as a youth.

[ 6 ] The DYP tried to return Y with her mother who stated that she did not want to have her anymore because she was too hard to handle and too young. X went on living with her mother, but again the mother went back to her bad habits and the child was neglected. Finally, in September 2011, the mother said that she did no want to take care of X neither. [ 7 ] The applicant reports in her evaluation of the situation that:“This little girl (Y), 5 years old, is severely in distress through the years with a lot of crisis who let the mother and the foster parents in distress also in many occasions.

Even if so young, her behavioural disorders are very hard and spectacular”. [ 8 ] B and C are fostering her. Even though the child is doing relatively well in this foster family, they are questioning themselves if they can continue until the child reaches her majority. They want to help her, but they already have five children (two on their own and three that they foster) and Y requires a lot of attention and supervision. [ 9 ] A life project has to be put in place concerning Y.

Yesterday, the child was placed with a DYP worker, [Social Worker 2], and she is looking forward to may be keep her until her majority. [ 10 ] X is 8 years old and she is in grade 3. She is not a very talkative young girl, but her foster parents, D and E, have invested themselves in X’s life. She was with them almost two years before the DYP tried the reintegration with the mother during the last summer. She is part of the family and welcome with them. The foster family had offered their help to the mother if she wanted to keep X. She could come to their place if she needed food or sent X to them for respite.

The mother did not take advantage of the offer. [ 11 ] Mrs. E testified that she loves X and that she wants to care for her. She is supported by her partner and mentioned that she has no objections if the mother wants to be involved with X. [ 12 ] Considering the admissions, the testimonies and the different reports filed, the Court considers that the recommendations of placement are in the best interest of the children.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the petitions; DECLARES that the security and the development of X, born on […], 2003, and Y, born on […], 2006, are compromised in accordance with the Youth Protection Act; ENTRUSTS X to foster care until she reaches majority (family of E and D); ENTRUSTS Y to foster care for a period of six months; ORDERS that a DYP worker provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children, their mother and the foster families for the respective period of placements; ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be supervised by the DYP in terms of frequency and modalities; ORDERS that Y receive the specific health care and health services require by her situation; WITHDRAWS from the mother some attributes of her parental authority (school, travelling and medical follow-up) concerning X and GRANTS them to the foster parents; ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of this enactment, if asked to do so; ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the director who shall see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Marc E.

Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Robert-André Adam Counsel for the applicant M e Sarah Plamondon Counsel for the mother M e Yan Massé Counsel for the children

Date of hearing: December 13, 2011