2022 QCCQ 13895, 2022 QCCQ 13895

Protection de la jeunesse — 224787 2022 QCCQ 13895 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” No : 614-41-000565-202 DATE : May 27, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2011 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on May 27, 2022. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the Honourable Lucille Chabot on September 9, 2021. [ 3 ] On March 7, 2022, the Tribunal entrusted the child on a provisional basis to a foster family. [ 4 ] On April 6, 2022, the Tribunal postponed the revision hearing and maintained the status quo. [ 5 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be maintained in a foster family and that support measures be ordered for a period of six months. [ 6 ] The mother understands that she still needs to take steps to stabilize her situation and maintain her sobriety.

She reported being sober since the end of February, beginning of March 2022. She contacted a NAADAP worker recently. [ 7 ] The father also understands that at the moment, he needs to work on himself. He is taking

part in a therapeutic process. Following this, he wishes to participate in anger management and in a healing journey. [ 8 ] The child’s attorney agreed with the Director’s plan. She recommended that a minimum of contacts be ordered between the child and her siblings. Question in litigation [ 9 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and Analysis [ 10 ] The child has been doing generally well within the foster family.

[ 11 ] The child enjoys living with her current foster family but misses living with her own family. [ 12 ] The parents’ situation has remained essentially the same. They have continued to use drugs and to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication. [ 13 ] The parents maintained an off and on relationship. [ 14 ] On March 31, 2022, the police had to be called as the father had punched the mother. Both parents were sober during this incident. At the time of the event, X was in the home and heard her parents argue.

She reported that she ran to help her mother and asked her father to stop. [ 15 ] Following this incident, the mother reported that she did not want to get back living with the father. The father was detained in Town A. [ 16 ] In her last judgment, Justice Chabot was very clear when she wrote the following: Both parents have to solve their problems on a permanent basis. If not, it will impact the reintegration of the children with them. [ 17 ] The parents took steps to enter treatment.

At this point, they are on a waiting list. [ 18 ] The mother reports being sober since the beginning of March 2022. [ 19 ] At this point, the parents are still not in a position to care for the child. They have not yet taken

part in a rehabilitation program and been given the tools to stabilize their situation. [ 20 ] The child was first placed outside of the family in January 2020. Maximum duration of placement has been reached for a long time. It is in the child’s interest to extend placement for a short period of time. The Tribunal asks the Director to prepare right now a concurrent plan in the event that the child’s reintegration would not be possible.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 23 ] REVISES the order rendered on September 9, 2021 by the Honourable Lucille Chabot; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child remain in a foster home; [ 25 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that, in the event of a reintegration in accordance with

article 62.1 of the Youth Protection Act , this process would be done at the exclusion of the father; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director with supervision if deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that contacts be organized between the child and her siblings, minimally once per week; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that contacts be organized with the mother, minimally once per week; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child see his siblings at least once a week; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents remain abstinent of alcohol/drugs during visits with the child; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents attend and complete a treatment program for drug and alcohol and follow recommendations made for aftercare; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain and share information with service providers working with the family as to progress and attendance; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, meet with the worker upon request and inform the worker of any changes of coordinates; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of Board of Health and Social Services A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on July 5, 2022 /cd Mtre Adélia Ferreira Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the child Mtre Yan Massé Counsel for the mother Mtre Justine Bergeron Counsel for the father Date of hearing: May 27, 2022