2021 QCCQ 17044, 2021 QCCQ 17044

Protection de la jeunesse — 217542 2021 QCCQ 17044 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001572-137 DATE: October 5, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X born on [...], 2007. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business at […]; Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at an unknown address in […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 extend a decision rendered by Jean Gravel, J.C.Q. on April 12 2016 regarding the youth X , born on [...], 2007 . [ 2 ] On that date, the Court declared the security and development of the youth to be still in danger and entrusted her until her majority to C, the maternal grandmother. [ 3 ] The Director submits that because C passed away on December 4, 2020, the previous decision should be reviewed, to entrust the youth until her majority to D, the maternal grandfather. [ 4 ] Indeed, the DYP allege that since the last Court order in April 2016, the parents’ situation has remained unchanged.

Therefore, the youth cannot be entrusted to them. [ 5 ] The parents are not present and are not represented. [ 6 ] [Social Worker 1], a social worker, testified about the steps she took to reach the mother before the day of this hearing, in vain. The mother left the community A two years ago and her whereabouts are unknown. According to the DYP, the mother may be homeless in the area A. Many women’s shelters were contacted in that area, to try to locate the mother. None of the many steps taken were successful. [ 7 ] As for the father, the DYP is aware that he was detained for a while.

A DYP worker met with him and informed him about this hearing. [ 8 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] testified to the effect that the father agreed with the DYP measures. [ 9 ] This morning, the father was served the Court documents and he told the DYP worker that he had no intention of going to court today. Allegedly. he again expressed his agreement with the proposed measures. [ 10 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES that it has jurisdiction to proceed in the absence of the parents. [ 11 ] The youth is present and represented.

Through her counsel, she recognizes that her security and development are still in danger and she agrees with the measures proposed by the DYP. Facts [ 12 ] The mother’s whereabouts are unknown to the DYP;

[ 13 ] The father is minimally involved in the youth’s life; [ 14 ] Since the last Court hearing, the youth has remained under the care of her maternal grandmother, C, to whom she was entrusted until the age of majority; [ 15 ] Since April 2016, the youth has been taken care of by both of her maternal grandparents; [ 16 ] On December 4, 2020, Ms.

C passed away and the youth remained in the same environment, under the care of the maternal grandfather, D; [ 17 ] There is a strong bond between the youth and her grandfather; [ 18 ] D is willing to continue to take care of the youth until the age of majority; [ 19 ] The maternal grandfather, with whom the youth have been living since the last Court decision, testified to the Court of his willingness to continue to care for the youth until her majority; [ 20 ] The youth also wishes to remain under the care of her maternal grandfather; [ 21 ] The father was recently released from detention and he has not had any contact with his daughter since then; [ 22 ] The mother’s current situation is unknown.

She has not had any contact with the youth in the last 3 years. [ 23 ] Considering the evidence heard and the documentary evidence filed by the DYP, the Court is convinced that it is in the best interest of X to be entrusted to her maternal grandfather, D, until her majority.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on April 16, 2016; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the youth is still in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center, namely D; [ 28 ] ORDERS that contact between the youth and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the terms, frequency, and degree of supervision; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the youth’s family until […], 2025; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 33 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in enforcing this judgment; [ 34 ] The whole until [...], 2025. __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q.

Mtre Justine Carli, counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Angele Tommasel, counsel for the child A, mother, not represented B, father, not represented Date of hearing: October 5, 2021