2022 QCCQ 14369, 2022 QCCQ 14369

Protection de la jeunesse — 229065 2022 QCCQ 14369 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002709-217 DATE: July 29, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 7, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2021 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on September 1, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2021.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family with a gradual reintegration under the parents’ care as soon as they respect the visit attendance and mobilize themselves, until May 31, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the placement in a foster family has to be prolonged for a period of one year. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. Considering the steps taken by the DYP to ensure his presence, considering the consent of the parties and the best interest of the child, the Court proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is 13 months old. He is represented by Me Michaël Pereira. After hearing the evidence, Me Pereira submits that the situation of the child continues to be endangered and that the measures are in his best interest.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On July 27, 2021 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures. The child was one month old. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 7 ] On September 1, 2021 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. The parents lived at the grandparents’ place. The parents had alcohol consumption issues and get intoxicated to the point that they were not able to take care of the child. The grandparents were overwhelmed with the situation. The parents refused to take their parental responsibilities.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] , entrusted him to a foster family and authorized a reintegration with the parents following very strict conditions, the whole until May 31, 2022. Facts [ 8 ] The mother recognizes that she still displays alcohol consumption issues. [ 9 ] The DYP alleged that she took no steps to improve her situation nor to have the child back under her care.

[ 10 ] The non-contested evidence shows that the mother had been regularly reminded that she has never made any request in that sense. The only time she saw her son was when she accompanies friends of her at the specialized foster family for contact with their own children. [ 11 ] Doing so, the mother only saw her child 5 times in 8 months, even if he is entrusted in the same village.

The most recent visit took place 5 months ago. [ 12 ] The DYP worker had been unable to have a clinical meeting with the mother and was able to see her only by accident while intervening in other situations. [ 13 ] The father had been detained for a certain period of time during the current measures, he did not reach out the DYP to have news about his son.

He confirms that he did not participate in a program to address his issues in detention and does not plan to attend Social Services A once released. [ 14 ] The child had different medical issues during the current measures and had to be hospitalized 8 times between October 2021 and February 2022 for various diseases: bronchitis, ear infections, pneumonia, full-body spasms and Covid-19.

The antibiotics were not giving a lot of result so he has to receive it intravenously, but one time, he developed an allergy to one of the products. [ 15 ] For the spasms, the possibility of epilepsy had been raised, but finally the doctor concluded that the child was intolerant to lactose. Since the lactose had been withdrawn from his diet, he had no other episode of spasms. [ 16 ] Each time, the child had to go to the nursing, the DYP took steps to reach the mother, but most of the time without success.

When she was reached, the mother always gave her consent for the medical care, but some decisions had to be taken urgently without being able to reach her. [ 17 ] If we disregard these health issues, the child is developing well and there is no concern about his global development. The issue that remain is the fact that the foster family suspect that the child could be totally or partially deaf.

The day of the hearing, the child was supposed to have an appointment in audiology. [ 18 ] The day before the Court, the child was transferred down south to a new foster family available to take care of him on a long- time basis. The mother was met to receive explanations, and she agreed with such transfer. The father had said that he would come to meet the DYP worker about that, but he did not. [ 19 ] The DYP worker explained the steps taken to find an Inuit foster family to avoid a placement in a non-Inuit family and, moreover, down south. The research had been unsuccessful.

The child’s health issues made the research more difficult. Analysis [ 20 ] The evidence clearly shows that no change happened in the situation of the parents and that they were mostly absent from their child’s life, preventing the creation of bonds between him and them. [ 21 ] Without any change, the situation of the child continues to be endangered. [ 22 ] The child is entrusted in a foster family under judicial measures since July 27, 2021. The first placement was ordered following an immediate protective measure. At that moment the child was one month old.

The maximal duration of placement for a one-month child is one year. So the maximal period of placement is reached since at least 2 days. [ 23 ] The Court underlined that the DYP made sure that the contacts could have occurred easily considering the child had been entrusted in the same village as the mother. That was indeed necessary and it would have been very beneficial for the child to have more contacts with his mother.

Every child deserves to be raised by his own parents. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, in this situation, we have to admit that the mother did not take advantage of this opportunity and prevent the child from creating attachment to her. [ 25 ] The specialized foster family is a temporary placement used by the DYP when a possibility of reintegration is anticipated.

For sure a life plan will have to be prepared for this child to give him the opportunity to develop in a stable and loving environment. [ 26 ] Considering the health issues, the child had suffered from and the difficulty to reach the parents, the Court will withdraw the attributed of parental authority to avoid any delay. The mother agrees with such request.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2021, are still endangered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency, the modalities and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth protection; [ 34 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS those to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, daycare, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE until July 31, 2023. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Daphnée Drouin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: July 29, 2022