2021 QCCQ 17258, 2021 QCCQ 17258

Protection de la jeunesse — 214654 2021 QCCQ 17258 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002188-180 DATE: May 26, 2021 (written judgment rendered on July 15, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on February 24, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to the foster family of Ms. B and Mr. C until the child’s majority. [ 2 ] The DYP asks that X remain entrusted to her foster family, namely Ms. B and Mr. C and that the parental authority be given to them.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits that her situation remain endangered and that the recommended measures are in her best interest. [ 4 ] X has 2 sisters, Y (2 years old) and Z (12 years old). The Court is also seized with their situations. History of the Situation [ 5 ] The family situation is known from the DYP since August 2014. [ 6 ] On October 2, 2018 , the evidence revealed that the mother was involved in a violent relationship with D, registered as a sex offender.

On July 26, 2018, the mother was medevaced to City A for very serious injuries and multiple fractures ( fracture of the mandible and the fixation; multiple fractures of the ribs; fracture of the lumbar vertebrae L1, L2 and L3; thrombosis of the left renal vein; laceration behind the left ear; massive bruising to the thorax, back, thighs, and arms ) following an assault from her boyfriend. Since then, the mother spent most of her time between City A and City B. She is pressured by her boyfriend and his family to drop the charges.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family until October 31, 2019. [ 7 ] On October 22, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered, Z was maintained under her mother’s care while X was maintained in a foster family. The contacts between Z and D were prohibited until he clarifies his status as the father of the children. [ 8 ] On November 19, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that the mother came back with Mr. D a few days after the previous decision and was the victim of conjugal violence a few times.

By the end of 2019, she became pregnant from Mr. D. In January 2020, after another event of conjugal violence, Mr. D was arrested and detained. He was sentenced and remained in jail until July 2020. The mother gave birth in City A, but she had a lot of complications and the baby was entrusted at birth. The mother was living with her older daughter, but she remained ambivalent regarding her relationship with Mr. D. The child is in the same foster family of Ms. B in City C, since July 2018.

The child is developing well. [ 9 ] The DYP admitted that all the appropriate measures were not taken to ensure the contact between the child and the mother, so despite the maximum delay of placement is reached, the DYP recommended to the Court to prolong the placement. The Court

maintained the child in a foster family with a gradual reintegration if possible, declared that the rights of the child were wronged and ordered that the mother receive the service of an external educator at least once every 2 weeks until the end of the measures, starting within the next 2 months. The Court also ordered a prohibition of contact between the child and Mr. D and order a minimal frequency of contact between the child and the mother, the whole until June 30, 2020. [ 10 ] On July 7, 2020 , the Court revised the situation.

In January 2020, the police was called for suicidal ideation from the mother’s part. Since August 20, 2018, the child is fostered by Ms. B and Mr. C and she was doing very well. The mother made great improvements in her life and the visits with her child went well, but she did not contact the DYP to make follow-ups. The DYP asked that the child be placed until her majority, but the Court declared that it is still time to see if a reintegration could be done.

Doing so, the Court prolonged the placement in her current foster family for another 6 months with a possible reintegration after 4 months. [ 11 ] On December 12, 2020 , the Court prolonged the measures on a provisional measure. [ 12 ] On February 24, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The child remained entrusted to B and C, a [origin A] family. X speaks [language A], English and learns [language B] as she attends an daycare full-time. Her development does not raise any concern. The mother is still living in City D and resumed the care of one of her daughters.

The situation remained positive until the summer, when she had been assaulted by Mr. D. The mother was supposed to receive the services of an external educator, but as no one is available in City D, she did not receive this type of service contrary to the last decision. The mother is difficult to be reached, but when she is met, she is respectful and collaborates well. X is very attached to her foster parents and she has difficulty to go with her mother during the visits as she always needs to be reinsured by the foster parents. The mother and Mr.

D explain that their situation has improved a lot since October, the last event of conjugal violence. They stopped drinking. Mr. D is working full-time, and his financial situation improved. He is now able to pay his rent. Considering the maximum delay has been reached and the strong bonds between the child and the foster parents, the Court entrusted the child until the majority to Mr. and Ms. B. Facts [ 13 ] X remained in the foster family according to the last decision which entrusted her there until the majority.

Her situation remained stable and nothing particular was raised regarding her since that time. [ 14 ] Unfortunately a tragic event occurred on March 25, 2021. Indeed, the DYP was made aware of the mother death. It was alleged that Mr. D murdered the mother and committed suicide right after. Analysis [ 15 ] The situation of the child remains endangered and is also endangered due to the recent death of the mother. [ 16 ] X was recently entrusted until majority to her foster family where she is since she is 3 months old.

She is well adapted to them, and there is no reason to modify this decision. [ 17 ] Following the mother’s death, the DYP was named tutor for the child, but asked that the parental authority could be granted to the foster parents. The Court is totally agree with this request which is in the best interest of the child. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still endangered; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. B and Mr.

C; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parental authority be granted to Ms. B and Mr. C; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the foster family; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2036. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Date of hearing: May 26, 2021