2019 QCCQ 5215, 2019 QCCQ 5215

Protection de la jeunesse — 194992 2019 QCCQ 5215 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000882-180 DATE: January 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant And A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother And B , residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 a decision rendered on October 31, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018. At that date the Court declared the security and development in danger and entrusted the child under her mother’s care at the strict condition that the mother stays at Ms.

C’s place with aid, counselling and assistance until January 16, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and suggests that the child be entrusted to a foster family with a possible reintegration to the care of the parents is the situation allows it. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Martineau. She admits most of the allegations, she understands the recommendations, and she believes that it is in the best interest of X. [ 4 ] The father is present, but not represented.

He admits some of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations. [ 5 ] X who is 8 months old is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. After hearing the evidence, the child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested being in her best interest. Historical situation [ 6 ] On October 31, 2018 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The mother was 16 years old when she gave birth. She was followed by the DYP. Since her birth, the child had lived in a foster family and with her mother while she was in a treatment centre in [province A].

After the therapy, many attempts were made to entrust the child and her mother in the same foster family, but few foster families renounce as the mother did not respect the rules. Some events of conjugal violence occurred between the parents. The Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [1] and entrusted the child to her mother with the obligation to live at the mother’s aunt’s place with other very strict conditions.

Facts [ 7 ] Only a few days after the last hearing, C, the mother’s aunt, informed the DYP worker that she can’t continue to foster the mother A as she does not respect the rules. A came at her aunt’s place with friends and they consumed alcohol. [ 8 ] An immediate protective measure was taken. A was entrusted to the Group Home in City A and X was entrusted to a foster family in City B.

[ 9 ] Few attempts were made to organized contacts between the mother and her child, but as the mother ran away, it had to be cancelled. [ 10 ] The first visit took place on December 7, 2018, but she also ran away during the weekend despite the facts she was escorted. She was found only on January 9, 2019. She was able to see her daughter, without authorization, at the father’s place when he exercised his access. [ 11 ] The DYP wants to help A to gain maturity, autonomy and to develop a healthy way of life.

She is able to do very well in a structured environment, but as soon as she has a little freedom, she misbehaves. [ 12 ] The DYP also mentions the importance to maintain frequent contacts between A and her daughter. As A ran away many times during her visit in City B, the DYP would like to make the foster family travelling to City A to avoid the temptation to run away. [ 13 ] The mother would like to go back to the Therapy Centre in [province A] with her daughter. She would also like to go to City C or City D as she has family members and friends there who do not consume.

The name of those persons was communicated to the DYP in October, as potential foster family for her and her daughter, but they were never contacted by the DYP. Despite the difficulty at the Group Home in City A, she agrees to stay there and wants to receive services from a therapist more often. [ 14 ] The father loves his daughter and would like to see her more often. As he is living in City B, he exercises a lot of access.

When he asked for more than the frequency he has, the DYP explain to him that he will have to obtain the items needed for a child and a car because the DYP and the foster family can’t provide for transportation so often. [ 15 ] The father does not seem to understand well what it means to take care of a child on a permanent basis.

The DYP is available to help him to improve his parental capacities regarding the routine, the care to be given and he is open to receive those counsels. [ 16 ] The Court was surprised to read in the report the following statement: Permanency plan: That the child be entrusted in a foster family, an environment where there is enough structure for her to evolve in a safe and stable way. Alternative permanent plan: If the previous plan is not possible, X will return under the care of her mother as soon as the situation allows it.

Questioned about this aspect, the DYP worker admits that it’s a mistake and we should read the contrary. Analysis [ 17 ] As during the last hearing, A was able to express herself very well, and to admit what went wrong. She is very brilliant, but she was not able to respect the conditions imposed by the Court.

The rules were very clear, but only a few days after the decision, she consumes with friends at her aunt’s. [ 18 ] This non-respect has not only consequences on her, but also on her daughter, who is now entrusted and can’t evolve with her mother. [ 19 ] More of that, A did not respect the rules during the home visits which reduce the time spent with her daughter. [ 20 ] The mother has to understand the importance for her and for her daughter to respect the conditions. The Court is convinced that A does not want her daughter to have the same childhood as hers and that she wants to offer her a better life.

To achieve that, she has to take care of her and to benefit from the help offered to her. [ 21 ] The mother has good parental capacities, but she needs to be consistent with her daughter and to understand that the interest of her child should be prioritized. [ 22 ] The father is very attached to his daughter. Now he needs to apply the counsels provided by the DYP to be able to increase his access rights, and to develop a strong bond with his daughter. [ 23 ] Actually, the situation of the child remains in danger and the placement suggested is in her best interest.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and AUTHORIZES a reintegration with the parents as soon as the situation allows it; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through the Social Services for their personal issues; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation;

[ 30 ] ORDERS that the child is not left alone in the presence of both parents as long as judged necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the child be facilitated, encouraged and determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 33 ] ORDERS a minimal frequency of twice a week for the father; [ 34 ] ORDERS a minimal frequency of once every two weeks for the mother, as long as she’s entrusted in the province of Quebec and not running away; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contact with the parents be increased according to the evolution of the situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 37 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection engaged himself to facilitate the contacts between the child and the parents and recognizes the importance that the parents keep that bound; [ 38 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until the end of November 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 16, 2019