2014 QCCQ 20419, 2014 QCCQ 20419

Protection de la jeunesse — 147955 2014 QCCQ 20419 JL3389 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 525-41-018683-060 DATE : October 29 th , 2014 _____________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her capacity as person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B , the father - and - C , the paternal grandmother Respondents JUDGMENT (ART. 95 L.P.J.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on October 29 th , 2014. [ 2 ] The Court is seized with a motion to extend an order rendered on November 14 th , 2012, concerning X . [ 3 ] Essentially, the Director of Youth Protection sustains: 3.1 the child remained under the care of Mrs. D;

3.2 the child appears to do well under the care of Mrs. E; 3.3 Mrs.

E responds well to the child’s needs; 3.4 The child maintained bi-monthly contact with the paternal grandmother, including sleepovers during weekends; 3.5 The contacts are positive for the child; 3.6 The entrustment assessment by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) in A province could not be completed; 3.7 Since February 2013, the mother has had supervised access to the child; 3.8 The mother continues to have mental health issues; 3.9 The mother does not acknowledges the impact of inconsistent visits on the child; 3.10 The mother’s collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection is inconsistent and the mother lacks transparency with the worker; 3.11 Overall the visits with the mother were difficult, as the child expressed not wanting to be there; 3.12 The child had monthly visits with his half-sibling F and he enjoyed it; 3.13 The father remained incarcerated; 3.14 Mrs.

E remains committed to taking care of the child; [ 4 ] Mrs. C, the paternal grandmother, is a declared party since the hearing of July 17 th , 2012 and all parties being in agreement, she is represented by attorney. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection is recommending that the child be entrusted to Ms.

D and that other measures be applied in order to correct the situation of compro-mission, as appears in the Court record, the whole until the child’s age of majority [ 6 ] With the consent of the parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 7 ] The father, through his attorney, made admissions to some of the allegations of the procedure and asked the Court to entrust the child to his mother, the paternal grandmother of the child, as appears in the Court record. [ 8 ] The attorney appointed for the child, made no admissions and declared to be in agreement with all the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 9 ] The paternal grandmother, through her attorney, made some admissions to the allegations of the procedure and contested the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, she asked the Court to entrust the child to her as appears in the Court record. [ 10 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the Director of Youth Protection filed the following documents: D-1: Court Report dated October 16 th , 2013, prepared by [social worker 1]; D-2: Addendum dated February 3 rd , 2014 by Laurent Holt; D-3 Addendum II dated June 6 th , 2014 by Laurent Holt; D-4: Addendum III dated October 21 st , 2014 by Laurent Holt; [ 11 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the grandmother filed the following document: I-1: Residential Tenancy agreement (A province); ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 12 ] The evidence shows that X (8 years old) has been through much upheaval in his short life.

Shortly after his birth, he was entrusted to the care of his maternal grandmother (E), his own parents being unable to care for him. He stayed with Mrs. E until her sudden death in May 2012, at which time he was entrusted to the care of Ms. D, a close friend of Mrs. E, who had been until then, very present in X’s life. [ 13 ] After Mrs. E passed away, X’s paternal grandmother Mrs. C, was presented to the Director of Youth Protection (DYP), by the father B, as a possible future family entrustement for X. [ 14 ] Contacts between X and Mrs. C had not been facilitated by Mrs.

E during her lifetime, so X did not at that time, have much of a relationship with his paternal grandmother Mrs. C. Furthermore, Mrs. C was planning to move to A city, A province. [ 15 ] The DYP indicated to Mrs. C that her request was being considered, however certain expectations needed to be met, namely that she demonstrate her commitment and ability to establish an environment where X could thrive. [ 16 ] X is a child with special needs. He has been assessed at the Autism Spectrum Clinic at the A Hospital and was diagnosed with

Pervasive Development Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). He attends A School, a specialized school for children with difficulties such as X’s, which he may continue to attend until he is 21. [ 17 ] Since 2012, Mrs. C began and maintained a consistent visitation routine, moving from several hours to overnight visits and occasionally multiple nights. Thus, she developed a strong attachment to X who in turn enjoys the time spent with his grandmother.

However, her efforts to replicate a stable, consistent home and school environment to meet X’s needs have not been successful to date. [ 18 ] As mentioned, X has been in the care of Mrs. D since May 2012. Mrs. E is seen as a loving, stable caregiver for X. In his Addendum II , dated June 6, 2014, (D-3) Laurent Holt describes her role in X’s life as follows: “Ms. E was a close friend for Ms. E and had been involved with X’s care since his birth. Ms. E spent significant time visiting X at Ms. E home, assisting her in his care and providing social activities for X. Ms.

E had intimate knowledge of X’s emotional, physical and educational needs through her assistance to Ms. E. X’s primary attachments were to F and Ms.E at the time Ms. E passing. Ms. E presented as the best possible caregiver at the time and X’s transition to her care was as smooth as could be expected given the situation. X’s attachment to Ms. E and her knowledge of his needs made it possible to minimize disruption transitioning to another caregiver. Since his integration to her home, X has continued to progress well and has benefited from the stability and continuity of Ms. E’s care.

In September 2011, X had begun his academic career at the A School in Ville A, an important resource for addressing his Pervasive Development Disorder and learning issues. Ms. E was able to provide consistently and continuity with this important resource as well. X continues to do well there and it is important that this resource be available to X as an important academic placement throughout the coming years.” [ 19 ] Neither of X’s parents are able to look after him, and it is not feasible that either will be in the near future.

The father has been incarcerated for a number of years, and his release date is unknown. The mother has unresolved mental health issues, and her whereabouts are mostly unknown. [ 20 ] The DYP is therefore requesting that a permanent plan be ordered for X, given the dispositions of

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act. The recommended measure is that X be entrusted to the care of Mrs. D until his age of majority. Mrs. E is willing to commit to looking after X for as long as needed. [ 21 ] With respect and compassion toward the grandmother, Mrs. C, while the Court recognizes her efforts and commitment toward her grandson, she is still not in a position to provide X with the stable conditions and environment he needs. [ 22 ] Meanwhile, X has developed attachments to his caregiver Mrs. E, to his school and his present environment. [ 23 ]

Section 91.1 clearly states that when the delays have elapsed (24 months in the case of

X) and the child cannot return to the care of his parents, the Court must order a measure that will ensure “continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.” [ 24 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that in X’s case, such needs are met in the care of Mrs. D. CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X continue to be in danger within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act. IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of Mrs. D TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that Mrs. D is being evaluated to become a foster family and in the eventuality that she is recognized as a foster family: ORDERS that X be entrusted to her foster home; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the address of Mrs.

E remain confidential with respect to the parents; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the parents and the child be determined by the DYP including supervision if necessary and taking into consideration the best interest of the child; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of visits between Mrs.

C and the child be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and that they be encouraged; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents not be under the influence of any illegal drugs in the presence of the child; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents keep the Director of Youth Protection informed of the addresses, phone numbers and how they can be reached at all times; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents provide the Director of Youth Protection updates on their current situation; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother take steps to address her personal issues including her drug consumption issues and mental health issues; [ 35 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents certain attributes of the parental authority namely: to sign all consents pertaining to the well being of X including travel, educational, medical needs and including passport applications; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the exercise of these attributes to Mrs.

D; [ 37 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance continue to be provided to the child and his family;

[ 38 ] THE WHOLE until X's age of majority; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see the measures are carried out, and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. SIGNED AT […] __________________________________ MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. M e Sym Davis Attorney for the applicant M e Karine Dallaire Attorney of the child M e Lilian Stah Attorney for the father M e Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the paternal grandmother Judgment rendered verbally on October 29 th , 2014 ML/mlm