2012 QCCQ 18862, 2012 QCCQ 18862

Protection de la jeunesse — 128114 2012 QCCQ 18862 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF […] Youth Division DATE: December 7, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: N°: 635-41-000420-114 X , born on […], 2000 ______________________________________________________________________ A Mother and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A Petitioner ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON REVISION (Section 95 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is a petition pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] concerning X, 12 years old. The Director is making an application for an eight-month foster care placement, in order to clarify a life project for the child. [ 2 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Myriame Gaudreault. The father is deceased. ISSUES RAISED: [ 3 ] The placement in foster care is not challenged. [ 4 ] However, the lawyer for the child proposes that X be entrusted to his paternal grandparents in Town A while the Director proposes a continuation of the placement in the current foster home, in Town B.

THE FACTS: [ 5 ] On April 11, 2012, Honourable Justice Jacques Roy ordered that the child be entrusted to a foster home until the end of the school year, with potential reintegration with the maternal grandmother B. [ 6 ] The child was sent to a foster family in Town B. The foster mother is C, Mrs. B's sister. [ 7 ] C, the mother of the child, has not been regularly involved in the child’s life for many years. She is currently living in town B.

Her address is unknown; she is presently homeless. [ 8 ] The mother is known to have a history of hard drug addiction. [ 9 ] Following the last Court hearing in April, she left Town A for Town B; since then, her whereabouts are unknown to the Director. [ 10 ] B, the child’s previous caregiver, still displays alcohol abuse problems. She refuses any help on that issue, and her collaboration with the Director is irregular. [ 11 ] The child requested visits to his paternal grandparents D in Town A. [ 12 ] The child is still with his foster family in Town B, where he is reported to do well.

ANALYSIS: [ 13 ] The situation has not changed much since the decision rendered by Judge Roy in April 2012. [ 14 ] The child has improved while in Town B because he is in a structured foster home with clear rules.

- Current foster home: [ 15 ] According to the foster mother, Mrs. C, the child is doing well at her place in Town B. She confirmed in August 2012, that she would be interested in fostering the child on the long term. The child is also reported to have improved in school, where he presently receives close support. [ 16 ] However, from time to time, the child asks to go to Town A where the rules are less restrictive. A problem in Town A is the presence of undesirable peers. - Maternal grandmother: [ 17 ] As to the maternal grandmother, Mrs. B, her collaboration with the Director is very low.

She has not addressed her alcohol abuse problem. Her situation is the same as six months ago concerning her personal issues. She did not seek any help for neither alcohol abuse nor parental skills. On top of that, Mrs. A said that she would not be the primary caretaker for the child. Further, she did not request any visits in the past six months. Reintegration with her, recommended by Judge Roy, has not been possible. - Maternal grandparents: (Mrs. D): [ 18 ] While in Town A lately, the child visited his paternal grandparents and it went well.

But the paternal grandparents express the opinion that the child should continue to live in Town B, as reported in the Revision Report. [ 19 ] Beside the child’s wish to be fostered by his paternal grandparents, there is no evidence that it would be in his best interest to order a placement at the paternal grandparents' place. - Conclusion: [ 20 ] The child needs to have a stable life project. The Director has to verify C's availability and interest for taking care of X on a long term basis. [ 21 ] X needs to live in a secure, stable and structured environment and to have his needs met.

Notably, he needs to get regular support to address his behavioural difficulties. The Director has also demonstrated that the placement should continue in Town B. [ 22 ] Overall, the Director has to look for a life project for the child. [ 23 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion. [ 25 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered by Judge Jacques R.

Roy on April 11, 2012. [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2000, are still in danger. [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child continue to be entrusted to a foster family for a period of eight (8) months, in order to clarify a life project for him. [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother A report to the Director, once a month, in person or on the phone, to inform the Director of her current situation. [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a daily basis, as prescribed by law. [ 30 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child, his mother, and his grandparents be supervised by the Director, as to the terms and conditions. [ 31 ] ORDERS that contacts be encouraged between the child and his paternal grandparents in Town A. [ 32 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother, in favour of the Director, notably all authorizations pertaining to social activities, school and medical care. [ 33 ] MAINTAINS all the other measures ordered by Judge R.

Roy that are not obsolete, with adjustments where necessary and applicable. [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution provide aid, counselling and assistance to the mother and to the grandparents, for a period of eight (8) months. [ 35 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this judgment. [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present judgment. __________________________________ CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. Me Marianne Gagnon-Bourget

For the petitioner Me Myriame Gaudreault For the child Me Jacques Stuart For the mother Date of hearing: October 16, 2012