2012 QCCQ 9648, 2012 QCCQ 9648

Protection de la jeunesse — 121387 2012 QCCQ 9648 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division NO: 640-41-001294-104 DATE: January 9, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of A of CITY A PETITIONER AND X Born on […], 2010 CHILD AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act asking to review and extend a previous court order rendered on March 24, 2011. [ 2 ] The father, M. B , was present and represented by Me Claude Beaudet. Me Daniel Ouellette acts on behalf of the young child and Me Alexandre Cimon on behalf of the petitioner. The mother, despite the fact that she was fully aware of the court hearing, was not present in court in September nor was she present in December.

She was aware of the measures proposed by the petitioner and she declared that she agrees with a placement of X until the age of majority. [ 3 ] The evidence reveals that both parents still experience an alcohol related problem. [ 4 ] For a period of time, the father resided in City B . He came back to live in City C i in September. The mother moved to City D during the summer. The parents did not fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection.

They failed to attend meetings set by the Social Worker. [ 5 ] Since last year, even if both parents were living in the community, they were very irregular in the exercise of their access rights with X . [ 6 ] In fact, in a 15-month period, the father showed up for access rights with X only seven times, even if he was offered many more contacts. The mother had no contact with X since she moved to CITY D last summer and, before she went to live there, she only had random access to him. [ 7 ] The situation of both parents has not improved since September 2010.

They recognize that they are unable to provide the care needed by the child on a daily basis. [ 8 ] The young X has been placed for more than one year with no real change in the lifestyle of his parents. The Court has no other choice but to find a stable place for X (Section 91.1 Y.P.A.). The grandmother, Mrs. C , has always been interested in taking care of her grandson. She first contacted Social Services in 2010 enquiring about taking custody of X if the parents were not able to take care of him. [ 9 ] X has an older sister who has been placed with her grandmother until she reaches the age of majority.

The Director of Youth Protection assessed the grandmother. There is no doubt that she is able to care for X on a long-term basis. [ 10 ] The mother declared to the Social Worker that she is in agreement with this measure. The father would prefer that X stay in City C i in the A family. Mrs. D is the sister of the present foster family. This family was assessed by the Director of youth protection

and there is no doubt that it is a good family, able to take care of X . The father requested that X be entrusted to the A family so he will live in the community and it would be easier for him to have access to his son. He says that it is important to him that his son be raised in a A community; that he keeps in touch with the Cree culture. [ 11 ] However, the grandmother is also able to develop this aspect with X because she is a member of the A First Nation. Even though she lives in City D , she spends time in Cree communities many times each year.

She also contemplates moving back, probably in City E . [ 12 ] The Court understands the position of the father but it also has to take into account the fact that over the last 15 months, when the child was living in the father's community, this one only exercised his access rights a few times. The lifestyle of the father is still unstable and he has personal issues to resolve. [ 13 ] This Court must make a decision that will only take into account X 's best interest.

Since there is no reintegration expected with one or the other of the parents, the decision must be one where the child will have the best guarantee of stability, and the grandmother is able to provide this permanence. She already had X under her care for a few days last spring, a few weeks during the summer, and three weeks in October. So, there is already a bond between them.

In addition, X will benefit from living with his sister, both of them being placed until the age of majority. [ 14 ] The Director of Youth Protection's representative declares that it is possible to organize access rights for the father in City D and that they will provide help in order for him to visit his son. [ 15 ] Considering the evidence, the Court: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the custody of his grandmother, Mrs.

C , until he reaches the age of majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS that all the parents' accesses to X be supervised as for the frequency and the modalities by the Director of Youth protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X , Mrs. C , the grandmother, and both parents until X reaches the age of majority; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the Director of Youth Protection provides help to the father in order to organize his access rights with X ; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that measures be taken to have a tutor appointed for X ; [ 23 ] Recommends that the grandmother, Mrs.

C , be appointed as tutor for X ; [ 24 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if required to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or his representatives; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS X 's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.Q.C. Me Alexandre Cimon Lawyer for the petitioner Me Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child Me Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: December 12, 2011