2018 QCCQ 13824, 2018 QCCQ 13824

Protection de la jeunesse — 184241 2018 QCCQ 13824 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031721-160 DATE : May 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2015 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 91 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 11.2, 11.2.1 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 2, 2018. [ 2 ] On October 5, 2017, the Tribunal declared that the child’s security or development was still endangered. Interim measures were ordered and the child remained entrusted to a foster family.

Considering the maximum duration of placement, the hearing was continued to January 16, 2018 in order to have a clearer plan presented for the child. [ 3 ] On that day, the Director recommended that the child remain in a foster family and that support measures be ordered until the child’s majority ([...], 2033). [ 4 ] The mother asked the court to render an interim decision. She planned to start a parenting course and agreed to take

part in a parental capacity assessment regarding the situation of the child’s sibling. [ 5 ] The Tribunal heard the foster parents’ testimony and continued the hearing to May 2 nd , 2018. [ 6 ] Today the Director maintains her previous recommendations for the child. [ 7 ] The mother does not agree with the Director’s plan. She wants the child to be transferred to the care of Ms. B, her former social worker who is now a foster parent. [ 8 ] The child’s attorney supports the Director’s recommendations and refers the Tribunal to the maximum duration of placement mentioned in the Youth Protection Act .

Questions in litigation [ 9 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 10 ] Is it in the child’s best interest to be transferred to another resource at this point? Context and Analysis

[ 11 ] The mother maintained regular weekly visits with the child. During these visits, the mother generally followed suggestions that were made. It has sometimes been difficult for her to understand the child’s cues. She missed visits on February 12, 26, March 28 and April 30, 2018. [ 12 ] The mother has still not attended the proposed parenting course. The mother reported that she made arrangements to take

part in a parenting class at Head and Hands. Following verifications by the psychologist on March 16, 2018, this information proved to be wrong. [ 13 ] Since November 2017, the mother has a new apartment. She tried preparing for the birth of her second child. [ 14 ] In February and March 2018, the mother took

part in a parental capacity evaluation related to the child’s brother. [ 15 ] On March 9, 2018, the mother informed the youth protection worker that she would start a new job at Tim Horton. It is not clear if, in fact, the mother started that job. [ 16 ] The mother is not always easily reachable. In the recent past, she did not have access to a phone for a period of three weeks. During her testimony, she also mentions that she is opposed to her child traveling outside the country as “ it is too far ”.

In the context of a long term placement, the mother’s position is unreasonable and is not centered on the child’s needs. [ 17 ] The mother recognizes that she still needs to work on herself: seeing a psychologist to rule out depression, attending a parenting class, visiting her child regularly. [ 18 ] The maternal grandmother testified that she is willing to support the mother.

She also wants to maintain contacts with her grand- daughter. [ 19 ] Following the birth of the child’s brother in January 2018, the mother mentioned to the youth protection worker that she had someone in mind to care for the child on a long term basis. She explained that she did not provide the name of this person before as she did not know this resource at the time of the placement. [ 20 ] At the hearing, the mother specified that she wants the child to be transferred to Ms. B, her former social worker, who is now fostering a child.

Contrary to what has mentioned to the youth protection worker, this potential resource was known to the mother even before the child’s birth. The mother does not seem to understand that her daughter would be living a traumatic experience if she was to be transferred to a different resource. [ 21 ] The child has been placed outside of her mother’s care since September 30, 2016. The child’s return to her mother is not foreseeable. She relocated to her current foster home on April 13, 2017. She is thriving in this environment. She is attached to her foster parents.

Any transfer to a different resource would be detrimental. [ 22 ] The foster mother specified that she is willing to receive phone calls from the mother, but that she has not called her yet. [ 23 ] The child is attending daycare and is progressing well. [ 24 ] The child’s maximum duration of placement has been reached. Consequently,

article 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act specifies that: (…) If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must 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. (…) [ 25 ] The foster parents are able to care for the child on a long term basis. They have four children, who are living on their own. They foster a two year old boy who gets along very well with the child.

The child needs to live in a stable environment, with adults who will care for her needs on a consistent basis. This alternative plan is clearly in her best interest. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster home of Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of visits between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the maternal grandmother be authorized to participate at some point in the contacts between the child and the mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to provide the social worker with any change of address or phone number in a timely fashion; [ 30 ] ORDERS that all medical, social and educational needs for the child be determined by the Director of Youth Protection if the mother cannot be contacted and consulted in an appropriate time frame; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign authorization for the child’s travel and passport; [ 32 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE until the child’s age of majority (2033-[…]);

[ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on May 15, 2018 /cd Mtre Isabelle Loranger Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Alec Fafard Counsel for the child Mtre Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: May 2, 2018