2016 QCCQ 16925, 2016 QCCQ 16925

Protection de la jeunesse — 167835 2016 QCCQ 16925 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000337-102 DATE: October 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2004 Child -and- A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise and extend the order rendered on February 8, 2016, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] The mother is not present during the hearing, even though she was duly served. The social worker also met with her to go trough the psychosocial report and the application. She was aware of the hearing set for today. [ 3 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent with the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the report to value the testimony of its author. [ 4 ] The child is twelve years old. She is very fragile and demonstrated behavioral problems such as mood swings, opposition behaviors and makes crisis. Her foster family mentions that her behaviour changes from week to week. She is unstable at home and also in school. [ 5 ] The foster family needs support to intervene efficiently with the child. They express ambivalence toward the child even if they are attached and committed to her.

They also are disposed to work with the services to improve strategies to deal with the child’s problems. [ 6 ] For all these reasons, a life project could not be planned for the child, even if the maximum delay of placement is reached. More time is needed to find her a suitable life project and also to see if her present foster family is ready to invest on a long-term basis. On the child’s side, she wants to stay in this family, and she has a sense of belonging with them. [ 7 ] The mother was incarcerated during the last measures ordered. Since then she got out of jail.

She requested only one visit with her daughter. This visit took place on September 15, 2016. [ 8 ] Since that day, no other visits were asked from the mother or the child. Even if the contact went well, the mother asked many questions to her daughter about things she should be aware of such as in which grade she was is in. The child felt like her mother did not know anything about her. [ 9 ] The mother is inconsistent and unstable. She started an addiction program but dropped out before the end. Her visits with the child are not regular and rare. [ 10 ] If the mother does not get involved in her daughter's life.

The situation will have to be reevaluated to verify, if, in fact, those contacts are beneficial to the child and in her best interest.

[ 11 ] Those contacts seem to put the child through a lot of stress, pressure and anxiety. Furthermore, it requires a certain mental preparation of the child before the visit occurs. [ 12 ] The evidence demonstrates that the child still needs a stable and safe environment, and the mother is not able to provide that for her. Furthermore, she requires services to help her regarding her behavior problems. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this young and very vulnerable child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of Paige Nicole Jerome are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 8, 2016; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until August 30, 2017; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother are determined by agreement between the parties including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from a psychological follow-up; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from a psychiatric evaluation; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until August 30, 2017; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse Andrée Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Date of hearing: October 5, 2016 Written judgment filed on November 9, 2016