2013 QCCQ 8527, 2013 QCCQ 8527

Protection de la jeunesse — 131807 2013 QCCQ 8527 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004126-119 DATE: April 26, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2009 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a Court decision rendered on October 1, 2012, concerning the child X, born on […], 2009. [ 2 ] The said judgment determines that the security and the development of the child remain in danger and orders the pursuance of measures of aid and support for a period of 6 months, moreover that the child remain in the care of his grandmother.

The Court also orders the supervision of the child's contacts with his parents. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the situation remains static as to the parent's inability to assume their roles, justifying that measures

continue to apply. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in his absence of the father, duly served of the proceedings and aware of the hearing date. The parties present consign their admissions in the Court record and signal their assent as to the measures. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] The child continues to flourish in his grandmother's care, alongside his uterine sibling, C. He frequents a daycare facility and is progressing well. [ 7 ] Neither parent demonstrates a significant change in their mutual situations. [ 8 ] The mother is mostly absent.

She fails to actively collaborate in the follow-up and doesn't respond to numerous attempts by the worker to engage her participation. She seeks no contacts through the Director. [ 9 ] Notwithstanding, the mother phones sporadically to speak with her children at the grandmother's domicile. [ 10 ] Since the last Court order, the child has one contact with her mother, which the grandmother authorizes without the knowledge of the Director, for the period of December 24 th to 26 th 2012, under the condition of her sobriety.

Following this contact, the child regresses, namely showing difficulty sleeping, irritability, isolation, and a refusal to respect her routine. [ 11 ] The father is absent from his son's life, the last contact being in May 2012. He fails to cooperate in the measures. [ 12 ] In December, the father integrates [the program A] in view of addressing his drug dependency.

It is here that the Director is able to reach him, and he confirms ceasing contacts with his child because of a recurrence of his drug consumption. [ 13 ] The previous Court orders specify to the parents that the best interests of the child require their swift action to rehabilitate their personal situations in view of his reintegration in his natural environment.

The parents fail to make any significant steps to this end or benefit from the follow-up, and during this time, the child evolves in his grandmother's care and anchors herself in this milieu. [ 14 ] The Director of Youth Protection signals its intention of elaborating a permanency plan for the child. The grandmother's milieu is the subject of evaluation for an eventual tutorship.

The mother attests that she wishes to be a part of her children's lives and is not agreement with the elaboration of a permanency plan. [ 15 ] Although it is possible that the parent's respective situations evolve, the evidence suggests a sombre prognosis and this, in conjunction with the period of placement, justify that the Director go forth with the elaboration of a permanency plan for the child. [ 16 ] As to the contacts with the father, the child's interests dictate that these be forbidden.

The Court concludes that it would be detrimental to the child to resume this relationship without evidence to the effect that the father is able to establish and maintain a significant role. [ 17 ] For the mother, the Court maintains her supervised contacts, but notes that should she continue her lack of cooperation and implication, the consequent diminishment of her significance for the child, will also invariably lead to their suspension. [ 18 ] In view of the admissions and the reports submitted in evidence, the Court is satisfied that the security and the development of the child remain in danger.

The measures proposed are an appropriate reflection of the child's best interests. [ 19 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his grand-mother, Mrs.

D; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family for a period of 6 months; [ 24 ] FORBIDS contacts between X and his father; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES the contact between the child and their mother following mutual agreement between the parties and under the supervision of a third person designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] PARTIALY WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES the maternal grand- mother Mrs.

D to sign the authorizations required as to the child's medical, schooling, leisure, extra-curricular activities or for travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures.

__________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: April 26, 2013