2016 QCCQ 16920, 2016 QCCQ 16920

Protection de la jeunesse — 167830 2016 QCCQ 16920 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000298-118 DATE: October 3, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2010 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise the order rendered on July 4, 2014 in respect of the child. His brother is aimed by the same request. The parties agree to present a common proof. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present but not represented; she wishes to proceed without counseling. She admits the facts of the application, and consents to the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors.

Furthermore, she agrees with the recommendations of the DYP. [ 3 ] The father was not served because he has no address. He is currently living in Ontario, but he moves around often. The social worker could reach him by phone. She managed to inform him of the contempt of the application, and the recommendations requested by the DYP. He was aware of the present hearing and what it will be asked by the DYP in Court. Despite that, he did not show up at the hearing. For the best interest of child, the case will proceed. [ 4 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent with the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. [ 5 ] On June 12, 2012, the child was entrusted with a foster family in Town A for an interim period.

Afterwards, the mother decided to move back in the Town B region, so the child’s paternal aunt’s environment was assessed, and the child was entrusted to her, on May 15, 2014. [ 6 ] In the latest order rendered on May 29, 2015; it was ordered that the child be entrusted, until his majority, to the paternal aunts who became a foster family. [ 7 ] The child has been living with this foster family since May 15, 2014. In the beginning of the placement of the child, the paternal aunt was very collaborative with the services. She kept the DYP informed about all aspects of the child’s life.

She has a really good bond with the child. [ 8 ] Since the last measures, the situation changed. A few events occurred requiring the revision of the latest order. It all started around November 26, 2014 when the DYP was first advised that the house where the child lived was in an unsanitary condition. [ 9 ] They were also numerous sources of danger around the house for the child’s safety and health. At that time, the child was entrusted to another foster family under an immediate protective measure.

[ 10 ] On December 4, 2014, the child returned with his paternal aunt after she followed the recommendation of the DYP to improve her house condition to the satisfaction of the DYP. [ 11 ] On November 4, 2015, another report was made stating a situation of neglect about lodging and hygiene.

Some verification was made, and the report was not retained. [ 12 ] Afterwards on few occasions, DYP had to intervene on many aspects of neglect in the foster family environment to ensure that the standard necessary for a foster home be respected. [ 13 ] Although all the follow-ups done and the help given to the foster family, it still de-monstrates serious issues in regard to safety and sanitary surroundings. Furthermore, the collaboration with school professionals was mitigated because the foster mother did not agree with their decision.

This had an impact on the child who was aware of this situation. [ 14 ] On August 12, 2016 once again, DYP was informed of a situation of neglect regarding lodging, hygiene but also educational neglect caused by a lack of supervision. After evaluation, the allegations were confirmed. [ 15 ] On August 15, 2016, the child was entrusted to another experienced foster family under immediate measure, and he remains there. He is doing well and is stable. It was observed that his basic and affective needs had already been answered. [ 16 ] The mother had positive visits with her child, and she is adequate with him.

Moreover, the child appreciates them. The mother still needs to work on her parenting skills and to apply her authority during his outbursts. [ 17 ] The father had visits with the child when he was in the area, but since he moved to Ontario in the middle of this summer, the contacts had to be done through the phone. His collaboration with the DYP is mitigated. Moreover, he moves around a lot making it difficult to reach him. [ 18 ] The child does not have the same issue than his older brother. He is a happy child. He attends school and takes medication for his Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

He has an academic delay. He requires regular stimulation, continuous creative reward and consequence system. He receives services and his foster family to help him with his issues. [ 19 ] Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application for revision of order; [ 21 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until August 31, 2017; [ 22 ] MAINTAINS all conclusions of the order of July 4, 2014, that are not in contradiction with the present; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until August 31, 2017; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: October 3, 2016 Written judgment filed on November 9, 2016