2012 QCCQ 8762, 2012 QCCQ 8762

Protection de la jeunesse — 122480 2012 QCCQ 8762 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001202-099 DATE: March 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SOCIAL WORKER 1 , Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on August 16, 2011, concerning X, born […] , 2003.

More specifically, the applicant is seeking a placement of the child until his majority. [ 2 ] The mother, the father and the child are each represented by their lawyer, but only the mother is present. [ 3 ] The parents are in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection. THE FACTS [ 4 ] On July 16, 2009, Bigué J. declared that the security and development of the child were endangered. The reasons outlined by my colleague were that both parents displayed alcohol related problems.

Moreover, violence was well rooted within the parents' relationship. [ 5 ] The child was entrusted for a period of six months to the maternal grandmother, who is still the current foster family. On February 16, 2010, Grimard J. reviewed and extended the previous decision as the parents' situation had worsened. They were both arrested and detained for stabbing one another while intoxicated.

Accordingly, the child was then entrusted once again to his grandmother for a period of 18 months. [ 6 ] On August 16, 2011, Roy J. extended the placement of X in foster care for a period of six months in order to clarify a definitive life plan for the latter. [ 7 ] We are now at the end of the measures ordered by Roy J. The evidence demonstrates that since the last judgment, the parents' situation remains, for the most part, unchanged. They both still struggle with their alcohol addiction. While under the influence of alcohol, their behaviour led to the intervention of the police on many occasions.

The parents' cooperation with Youth Protection services was irregular. At times, they kept in touch with the Youth Protection worker. At other times they missed several scheduled appointments. [ 8 ] Considering the lack of significant improvement in the parents' lives, the security and development of X remain endangered.

APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 9 ] As previously mentioned, the Director of Youth Protection is seeking the placement of X until majority. The parents agree to this measure as they recognize it is in their son's best interest. The foster family, C and D , who are in fact X's grandmother and grandfather are willing to keep the child until his majority. The Court wishes to underline the involvement of the foster family towards their grandson.

As stated by the grandmother, she sincerely wishes that X remains with her and her husband as they are family and they have established a solid bond with him. [ 10 ] Nevertheless, the mother and son bond remains solid and both parents regularly visit X at his grandmother's. It is therefore important to underline the courage of the parents by accepting such a long-term placement. [ 11 ] The Court wishes the parents to remain significant figures for X. The Court believes it is possible for the child to have two sets of parents within the same family.

Both the grandparents and parents love him and in addition, the grandparents can answer all of his daily needs. [ 12 ] Considering the fact the child cannot go back with his parents and that he needs stability, the Court is convinced it is in his best interest to be placed in a foster family until his majority, provided he remains in the care of C and D . [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 14 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 15 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […], 2003, continue to be endangered; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until his majority; [ 17 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to the foster family of C and D ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the child and his parents be determined and supervised by the D.Y.P.; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, his parents and the foster family until his majority; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parents to play an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 21 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid B Lawyer for the child M e Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the mother M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: February 14, 2012