2016 QCCQ 17453, 2016 QCCQ 17453

Protection de la jeunesse — 168565 2016 QCCQ 17453 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000402-120 DATE: October 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2008 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 and extend the order rendered on October 6, 2015, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] The parents are not present during the hearing, even though they were duly served. The child is also absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child expresses his consent to the measures proposed by the DYP as modify and the filing of the report to value the testimony of its author. [ 3 ] The parents are not involved in the situation of their child. They made no impro-vement regarding their issues. Moreover, no recommendations provided in the last court order were followed by them. Both parents have difficulties collaborating with the DYP. [ 4 ] The mother’s situation did not improve since the last court order. She started a follow-up for her issues, but it only lasted two months.

She did the same thing concerning the social worker; she went at most three times and cancelled all the other appointments. She also cancelled all her appointments with the external educator. [ 5 ] Concerning the contacts with her child, visitations were planned, but she came to only two visits and cancelled all the others. She is inconsistent regarding her implication towards her child. She states that she is sober but doesn’t provide any kind of proof of it. [ 6 ] In the case of the father, he has not had any contact with his son since the last measures. [ 7 ] The child is eight years old.

He was diagnosed with an Attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder. In school, he has some behavioural problems but also has difficulties with listening and attention. [ 8 ] Since August 2015, the child integrated a new foster family that he already knew given that he is the son of his prior foster family. They have a close relationship. The integration with the family went correctly, and he is functioning well. [ 9 ] The foster family wants to be implicated with the child and to take care of him on a long-term basis. They hope that he stays in their family until his majority.

The father of this family was even present in the Court house to testify, to that effect, if need be. [ 10 ] The child needs to be secure and in a stable environment. The parents cannot provide such environment and care for the child’s needs. The child already feels that he is part of his new foster family, and they want also to invest in the child’s future. [ 11 ] The parents have to insure the well-being of the child and care for him, but they are unable to do that in a near future.

[ 12 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. The parents did not take major steps to change their lifestyles nor implicated themselves in their son’s life. [ 13 ] The child wishes to stay in his present foster family. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his foster family designated by the DYP until May 8 th , 2026 (date of his majority); [ 17 ] TAKES ACT that the foster family be that C and D; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents are determined by agreement between the parties, including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] ORDERS that all decision making authority with regard to authorizations to be given concerning the routine or urgent Health Services, the Social, Academic, Extra-curricular and to obtain a Passport, Social Insurance Card, Driver’s License or any other legal document that may be needed and Delegate such authority to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A along with the foster home; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until […], 2026 (date of his majority); [ 22 ] 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 order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: October 5, 2016 Written judgment filed on November 9, 2016