2014 QCCQ 6661, 2014 QCCQ 6661

Protection de la jeunesse — 14326 2014 QCCQ 6661 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 605-41-000716-118 DATE: February 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […], District A, […] Petitioner and A, residing and domiciled at […] in City A, District A, […] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( section 95 (2) , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection A, seizes the Court with a petition in extension of the measures included in the last judgment rendered on January 17, 2013 concerning the situation of X, born on […], 2011.

She asks that the child X be entrusted in a foster family until she reaches her majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present, assisted by Me Mylène Grondin. The child is represented by Me Marie-Claire Lemieux. Me Valérie Martel represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged and agrees with the measures.

She would like her child to be placed in a foster home in City A, even if she acknowledges that her child lived in four different places since her birth and now needs to be stable and be invested on a long-term basis. [ 4 ] The mother admits that she withdraw from her implication and involvement towards her child since she turned 18. From May to the end of September 2013, the mother ran away many times from the rehabilitation centre where she was entrusted until her majority.

She ran away to be with her boyfriend even if he is violent, involved in drugs traffic and a drugs and alcohol user. [ 5 ] Even if she planned to attend therapy in October 2013 when she would be 18 years old, the mother did not undergo. [ 6 ] The mother is unable to solve her own problems and to offer a secure and stable place to her child. She has an unstable way of life. The mother was irregular in her visits to the child last summer, but was more regulate in the last three months. [ 7 ] The child integrated a stable foster family in City A. Two young aunts of the child are placed in the same foster family.

Consequently, the child will evolve with native family members. The foster parents agree to invest in the child for a long period and they are attached to her. They accept the mother's visits and they intend to favour them. Bounds are already present between the child, the foster parents and the other children. [ 8 ] Considering the evidence and

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , [ 9 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 12 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family until her majority and that the child be maintained in the foster family of B;

[ 13 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to favour and to supervise the visit rights of the mother to the child (minimum once a month for four hours); [ 14 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the mother and the child for the duration of the judgment; [ 15 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide all the care and services required by the child; [ 16 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Valérie Martel, attorney for the petitioner Me Mylène Grondin, attorney for the mother Me Marie-Claire Lemieux, attorney for the child Date of hearing: January 7, 2014