2013 QCCQ 17460, 2013 QCCQ 17460

Protection de la jeunesse — 135925 2013 QCCQ 17460 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001385-118 640-41-001386-116 DATE: September 30, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, 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 & Y, both residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant [Social Worker 1] presents a motion for the review and extension of an order rendered by Legault J. on November 13, 2012, concerning X, born on […], 2010 and Y, born on […], 2011.

By that order, Legault J. ordered the placement of both children in a foster family as well as the preparation of a life plan for each of them. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and represented by her lawyer. The father was duly served but decided not to attend court despite many attempts made by the applicant to have him take the plane from Town A. Due to their young age, both children are absent but are represented by counsel. THE FACTS [ 3 ] The Director was able to prepare a life plan for X and thus asks the Court that she be entrusted to a foster home until her majority.

As for Y, his placement in his last foster family failed. Therefore, the Director asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months in order to prepare a new life plan. Counsel for both children believes that the Director's recommendations are in her clients' best interest. As for the mother, she is presently detained and feels betrayed and let down by the absence of the father. She expected him to be present and contest the placement of X until majority. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved in the life of both children for over two years now.

On September 27, 2011, the Court declared the security and development of both children endangered due to neglect stemming from the parents' addiction to alcohol and drugs. [ 5 ] The children's situations were revised on three occasions. Each time the children were entrusted to the care of foster families. As a result, the children have now been placed in foster care for more than 22 months. [ 6 ] Since the last court order, the parents have been inconsistent in their visitation rights. At best, they took advantage of 50 % of the scheduled visits.

Moreover, when they did see the children the lack of food and proper care of Y were an issue. Is also noteworthy the fact that the parents obviously have a much more significant bond with X than with Y. [ 7 ] On June 21, 2013, the mother was sentenced to an eight-month jail term. Prior to her incarceration, the mother's life revolved mostly around the use of alcohol and drugs. During the past two years, two attempts to attend treatment centers failed. On each occasion

the mother decided to leave the center at the beginning of the program. Her attachment to X is quite strong and she doesn't agree with her placement until majority but is realistic that on the short term she cannot offer stability to her children. The Court proceedings were a cause for pain considering the recommendations made by the applicant. [ 8 ] In support of her recommendations, the applicant is of the opinion that the parents' way of life regarding their abusive consumption of alcohol and their poor parental capacities are recurrent problems. She adds that there is no improvement in the parents' lives.

Their situation has remained the same troughout the Director's implication. Unfortunatly, the father's absence at the hearing says a lot about his willingness or ability to be there for his children when it counts the most. [ 9 ] In the present context, the security and development of both children remain endangered. The evidence shows there are still many concerns regarding the parents' capacity to provide a safe and secure environment for their children. APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 10 ] As previously mentioned, the Director of Youth Protection asks that X be placed in a foster home until her majority.

As for Y, the Director asks the court to disregard the maximum delay provided at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act in order to develop a new life plan. [ 11 ] This

section aims to help the parents develop and exercise their parental capacities within a given period after which attempt the children are entitled to stable living conditions.

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act also provides that the Court may disregard the maximum foster care period if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family on the short term, if the interest of the child requires it, or for other serious reasons. [ 12 ] From the case law developed on that matter, emerges two essential conditions that must be met before the court can render a decision aimed at providing continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions to the child on a permanent basis: 1) The prospect of the child's return with his family is unrealistic. 2) The existence of a life project by which the child is able to adapt and bond with his new family. [1] [ 13 ] In order to satisfy to the second condition, the court must verify the true long-term commitment of the surrogate family towards the child as well as the level of attachment of the child to his new family. [ 14 ] Moreover, in order to avoid the shunting around of the child from one foster family to another, the court must have the means to confirm and order that the child be entrusted to a specific foster family most likely to meet all of his needs.

This is in keeping with the objective of continuity and stability set forth by the Youth Protection Act and the

interpretation given by the courts. [2] X'S PARTICULAR SITUATION [ 15 ] The evidence shows that X has been in foster care for more than 22 months. She has been in the foster family of C and D for more than one year and eight months. This family is capable, interested and available to care for X until her majority. The child has established a solid bond with her foster parents. The foster family understands the importance for X to maintain significant contacts with her parents and her Inuit heritage.

They are willing to commit to that even if and when they decide to leave Town A. [ 16 ] The evidence pertaining to X convinces the Court that it is in her best interest to continue to live in this environment. She has established solid bonds with her substitute family. [ 17 ] Consequently, the need for a consistent, stable, secure and loving environment must be answered by the present decision and cannot be postponed to await possibilities that are not supported by the evidence.

X can no longer wait for significant changes in her parents’ lives. [ 18 ] Lastly, the evidence does not support the Director's request to withdraw from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority. Y'S PARTICULAR SITUATION [ 19 ] A meaningful life plan has yet to be finalized for Y. His last stay in a foster family broke down and he is presently living in a foster family in Town B. This family has close ties to Town A.

Y suffers from chronic ear infections and has been referred to the [center A] in Town C in order to investigate possible hearing problems. [ 20 ] The Court believes that the legal delays provided at

section 91.1 Y.P.A. must be disregarded in order to put into place a life project for Y. The foster family where Y is presently living is contemplating the possibility to commit to him on a long-term basis. However, it is too soon to tell if this will be the right match. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 23 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of both children remain endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family until her majority; [ 25 ] ORDERS that X remain in the foster home of C and D; [ 26 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months;

[ 27 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to prepare a life plan for Y; [ 28 ] ORDERS that both children receive the health care required by their state; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the children as well as between the siblings be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents, the foster family and to X until her majority; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and to Y for a period of six months; [ 32 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober during visits with either child; [ 33 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the parents Date of hearing: August 20, 2013