2022 QCCQ 13849, 2022 QCCQ 13849

Protection de la jeunesse — 222376 2022 QCCQ 13849 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002261-185 DATE: January 31, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in […] Applicant and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on April 1, 2021 by the honourable Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q. regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018. [ 2 ] At that date, the Court declared the security and development of the child still in danger and entrusted him to a foster family until October 31, 2021. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the placement has to be prolonged. [ 4 ] Indeed, the DYP argue that the situation of the parents remains the same, that the father is not regularly involved and is currently detained, and that the mother still struggle with alcohol.

Therefore, the DYP is asking the Court to entrust the child to the foster family of C, until the child reach majority. Position of the parties [ 5 ] The mother is not present, but she is represented. She disagree with the measures proposed by the DYP and she want her child to be reintegrated with her as soon as possible. [ 6 ] The father is present by Visio conference from the detention centre, but he is not represented. He tells the Court that he want the child to be reintegrated with him as soon as he is released from jail, in March 2022, after having served his sentence.

He therefore disagree with the measures proposed by the Director. [ 7 ] The child is represented under a legal mandate. Facts [ 8 ] The DYP allege a series of facts that occurred during the last measures. To support their factual allegations, the DYP filed documentary evidence and Ms [Social Worker 1] testify as well. [ 9 ] The Court took knowledge of that evidence and the present judgement is based on the facts that were proven. [ 10 ] During the last measure, X’s mother remain involved in his life.

Regardless of her situation, she continued to call her son on a regular basis and she offered a good collaboration with the foster mother.

[ 11 ] Ms A served a period of detention from the end of April 2021 until she was transferred into a treatment centre, in City A, in June 20, 2021. Indeed, the mother attended the [treatment Centre A] for a period of six weeks. [ 12 ] Unfortunately, the mother relapsed after having completed her treatment and she continue to display aggressive behaviour while under the influence of alcohol. [ 13 ] For example, a few days after her return from the therapy, the mother presented herself to the foster mother’s home while intoxicated by alcohol.

Even if she was under the influence of alcohol, the mother left with X without any permission. Later on, a youth protection worker found the mother and the child. At that moment, the mother was still intoxicated and sleeping deeply while X was in between the two entrance doors, alone, playing with a knife.

The mother was so intoxicated that she could not be awaken by the youth protection worker. [ 14 ] Furthermore, during the last measure, the local police intervened with the mother on 13 occasions, 7 for which she was the suspect, 5 for which she was the alleged victim and finally, 2 for which she was the caller. [ 15 ] According to the youth protection worker, Ms [Social Worker 1], the mother is not ready or stable enough to answer adequately the needs of a child. She is still struggling with her alcohol addiction, and she do not want help for her suicidal thoughts.

In addition, she’s impulsive and she more recently shown aggression towards the youth protection worker’s when she disagree with something. According to Ms [Social Worker 1], when she gets mad at the youth protection worker, it can take her up to four weeks to calm down and get back to them. [ 16 ] On the positive side, even if the mother is still struggling in her personal life, she is constant in maintaining her follow-up with social services. [ 17 ] Regarding the father, the DYP do not have much information about him.

He is serving a jail sentence for a crime of violence towards the mother and according to his testimony, he should be released from jail in March 2022. During his detention, the father did not reach out to the youth protection worker to either have news about his son or ask for contacts. The last contact he had with his son was therefore seven months ago, in July 2021. [ 18 ] When the father was asked by Ms [Social Worker 1] about the steps he took in detention to improve his personal situation, the father could not provide any answer.

She also added that the father could not provide any plan regarding the contacts with his son and the requested reintegration with him. [ 19 ] The father testified at the hearing and explain to the Court that when he will be released from jail, he intend to take X with him and reside with one of his nephew.

When asked how long he intended to stay at that place, the father answered that he did not know. [ 20 ] When questioned by his lawyer about the reason why he did not contact his son more than once in June and once last week, the answers of the father were vague and unconvincing to say the least [ 21 ] When questioned about why the Court should entrust the child to him, his answer was that he no longer wanted to deal with the Court and with the DYP anymore. [ 22 ] At one point, his lawyer asked him how he would react if his child was placed in a foster family until majority.

The father answered that since he doesn’t speak French, he will not want to talk to his son anymore. [ 23 ] Then the father was asked his opinion about the measures that should be put in place to protect his son’s cultural identity, sadly, the father answered that he did not mind and that “they could have him for good”. [ 24 ] Considering the surprising nature of that answer, the Court asked the father what he meant by that. The father than answered that he was fed up to come to Court and that he did not want to have anything to do with his son anymore.

He then added that he didn’t want to be involved with the Court anymore and he ask the Tribunal “not to bother him with his son anymore”. [ 25 ] The father then left the audience. [ 26 ] Finally, Ms C testified for the DYP. She started by explaining how well X is doing since he started to live with her almost a year ago.

Not long after the child was entrusted to her, she moved back to the Montréal region and since she was not working at the beginning, she explained that she had a good period of time to establish strong bond with the child. [ 27 ] She described her current relation with the child as very good and she expressed her will to care for the child until he reached the age of majority. [ 28 ] On the question of maintaining the child’s Inuit cultural heritage, Ms C explain that there is two other […] children in her enlarge family and X knows them.

She is also learning [language A] and she intend to bring the child with her to the [region A] when she will travel in that region for work. Finally she is open to regular contacts between the child and his parents and when he will start school, she intend to send him to an English speaking school so that he could use that language to communicate with his Inuit family. analysis [ 29 ] X is at 3 ½ years old boy that have been entrusted to the foster family of Ms C in March 2021. Before that placement, he had been entrusted to another foster family. [ 30 ] The maximum delay of placement according to

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act have been reach in the present file. Therefore the DYP have to present to the Court the long term life plan that will ensure the child safety and stability. It is in that legal context that the DYP is asking the Court to entrust the child to Ms C until he reached the age of majority.

[ 31 ] After carefully analysing of all the evidence presented in the present file, the Court concludes that the plan proposed by the father, to reintegrate the child with him when he will be released from jail is not only unrealistic, but this plan would clearly be against the best interest of the child. [ 32 ] As for the mother, even though she can still play a role in her son’s life, X, due to his very young age and vulnerability, cannot put his life on hold, waiting for his mother to solve her personal issues, in order to be able to properly care for him on a daily basis. [ 33 ] She do show an honest desire to make her situation better and to be present for X.

She did participate to a therapy for alcohol abuse, she had regular contacts with her son and she maintained her follow-up with social services. [ 34 ] Even though those efforts did have a positive impact on her son and on her relation with him, it is however not sufficient to put an end to the compromising situation.

Her alcohol addiction is still not under control, she remains unstable and she still have difficulty to manage her emotions. [ 35 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director of youth protection are in the best interests of the child, provides him with a stable and caring long term life plan and that those measures respect the rights of the child.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the application; [ 37 ] EXTENDS the decision or order rendered on April 1, 2021; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still in danger; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be intrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center, namely Ms C; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviours in the presence of the child; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the social services concerning their alcohol, drugs, and personal issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until [...], 2036; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 47 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that every possible measures be taken to ensure and develop the cultural identity of the child; [ 48 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that every possible measures be taken to ensure that the child learns English and language A.

Signed on March 11, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommassel, attorney for the mother Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 31, 2022