2012 QCCQ 15589, 2012 QCCQ 15589

Protection de la jeunesse — 123262 2012 QCCQ 15589 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NOS: 640-41-001176-095, 640-41-001177-093 640-41-001178-091, 640-41-001179-099 DATE: May 31, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2005 Y, born on […], 2003 Z, born on […], 2002 A, born on […], 2000 MR. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., Quebec, district A Petitioner and MRS.

C, residing and domiciled Town A, Quebec, district A Mother and MR. D, living in a half-way house in Town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1], delegate to the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., is asking the Court to review the last judgment rendered on April 19, 2011 by Honourable Judge Lise Gagnon concerning A, 12 years old, Z, 10 years old, Y, 8 years old, and X, 6 years old.

As the mother's situation remains a problem, the petitioner is asking for their foster placement until their majority, except for A for whom he is requiring a two-year placement in a specialized foster home. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present and represented by Me Angela Tommasel. Me Sarah Plamondon represents the absent mother, and Me Yan Massé, the children. Only A, the oldest, is present. Me Robert-André Adam represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] The father admits few allegations and disagrees with the recommendation of a long-term placement for his children.

The mother's lawyer admits some allegations and asks for a shorter placement. For A, Me Massé admits all the allegations and he agrees with the recommendation to extend his placement at the specialized foster home for two years. [ 4 ] The father is still serving his jail sentence, but he is now living in a halfway house in Town B until December 22, 2012. Since the father's arrest on June 9, 2009, the mother started drinking abusively and is unable to assume the children. They were all placed on account of negligence.

Despite the Court orders, the mother's situation has not improved and the children have remained placed since April 28, 2009. Three other judgments under

section 95 were rendered afterwards, that is, on November 17, 2009, April 12, 2010, and April 19, 2011. In the last judgment, B, the youngest child, was placed in a foster home until majority. She was 4 years old and she had spent two years in the same foster family. They were fond of her and wanted to keep her on the long term. The young child was attached to them and hardly knew her parents. As for the two boys, X and Y, and the girl Z, as they were just integrating new foster families, no life plan was developed.

The foster parents of Y were considering the possibility to invest in a life plan, but had not yet decided. A had been placed at the time since November 2010 at the [Centre A] and was functioning very well in such a structured environment. He was the only one keeping in touch regularly with his mother and grandfather. [ 5 ] Over all those years, the parents were not regular in their contacts with the children. As mentioned in the previous judgment “The children cannot wait all their life for parents to become able to care for them. For all the children, the delay has expired.

The previous Court decisions were already asking the Director of Youth Protection to propose permanent life plans for the children. Unfortunately, the evidence reveals that it was not possible to prepare these plans. For various reasons that are well explained in the reports, the Court comes to the conclusions that these life plans could just not be put in place”. [ 6 ] Now, the father testifies that when the family was together, he was the authority figure for his children and was responsible for them. The mother did not have the capacity to take care of them by herself.

When he finishes his penitentiary sentence next December, as

he had some therapies while serving time and as he still owns his house, he wishes to have his children and his job back when released. He acknowledges that he did not have regular contacts with the children and that he will need support to remain sober in his community. He also expects to help his spouse to improve on her behaviour. [ 7 ] The mother still displays alcohol problems and has not kept regular contacts with the children. [ 8 ] The foster mother of Z testifies that the child has not been in contact with her father for three months but that she talks regularly with her mother.

The child is well integrated in the family and is doing fine. Z had spent a year in this family in 2010 and 2011 and reintegrated the family last January. The foster mother is ready to invest in the long term with the child; she accepts and controls the girl’s regular contacts with her relatives. [ 9 ] The foster mother of Y has been involved for two years and the child is considered a family member. She and her husband have decided to keep him on the long term and agree to the child having regular contacts with his mother and grandmother regularly and with his father upon request.

These foster parents are related to the father. [ 10 ] The foster parents of X have been assuming him since January 2010. They are not [the origin A], but they both have been working in the [region A] for the past five years and they are planning to continue living there for some more years. They are very attached to the child and X considers them and their son as his family. They respect his culture, his language and will encourage the child’s cultural development. The child needs regular medical follow-up. The child is well adjusted to the family's routine.

He meets his mother sometimes at the store and does not react. They do not know each other and she never asks to visit him. The father has never phoned him. [ 11 ] For A, the report from the specialised foster home says that he still suffers from the neglect he experienced. Dr. Jeff Philips made a psychological assessment recently and noted that the youth has a low average to borderline range intellectual potential. “The youth demonstrates needs in regard to social skills development, assertiveness, skills development and anger management.

This leads to his difficulty in regulating his own behaviour.” [ 12 ] The youth needs a structured environment and specialized services. Without them, the psychologist considers he would not be able to function correctly. [ 13 ] The father wishes that the family be reunited soon after his release. He is anxious about his reintegration into the community and whether he will succeed in remaining sober. He intends to assume all his parental responsibilities and to renew with all his children. He is not aware of their evolution, their grievances and their needs.

He still wishes that the mother make a radical change in her habits and wants to help convince and motivate her. He knows that, last year, she attended a detoxification therapy and could not keep sober for more than three months. She has been drinking regularly since then. [ 14 ] The father's position is precarious because he is still detained and it depends on how he will behave when reintegrated. He does not know the evolution of his children as he has been detained since 2008.

Four years later, he wants to reunite the family, when each child now has developed a routine and a bond with foster parents while no or few ties were kept up by the parents. [ 15 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act states : If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed: (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 16 ] The evidence today does not reveal that the children will be returned to their father in the short term or that the children's interest requires it or, for serious reasons, that the Director of Youth Protection failed to provide the services agreed upon. [ 17 ] Evidence reveals that the father might be in a position this year to have regular contact with his children, that he will reintegrate his community and that he will have to prove his capacity to remain sober and to behave as a responsible citizen and father. [ 18 ] Should the Court allow a longer delay because he was detained?

Based on the efforts he made to keep in touch with his children

and the concern he showed for their well-being, the Court considers, in the present cases, that the father did not show such interest, and furthermore, that he has to rebuild a relationship with each child. [ 19 ] Consequently, the Court cannot expect him, in a short delay, to be in a position to assume alone his children, knowing that the mother has not the capacity to assist him.

The situation is too uncertain to place the children’s well-being at further risk. [ 20 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y, Z and A are still endangered; [ 23 ] ORDERS the placement of A in a specialized foster family for a period of two years; [ 24 ] ORDERS the placement of X, Y and Z in foster families until they reach majority; [ 25 ] ORDERS that Z be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. E and Mr. F; [ 26 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. G and Mr.

H; [ 27 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. I and Mr.

J; [ 28 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for the duration of the present judgment; [ 29 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to facilitate and supervise all the contacts and visits of the children with the parents; [ 30 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, Attorney for the petitioner Me Angela Tommasel, Attorney for the father Me Sarah Plamondon , Attorney for the mother Me Yan Massé, Attorney for the children Date of hearing: April 3, 2012