2018 QCCQ 13912, 2018 QCCQ 13912

Protection de la jeunesse — 195591 2018 QCCQ 13912 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001358-115 DATE: November 22, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April, 23 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on November 22, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until the end of November 2018, and strongly recommended that the foster family be the one of Mr. C. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to Ms.

B and to prolong the placement in a foster family. X is actually living with his biological mother, and the DYP plans to maintain him there. [ 3 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the Court was informed by Me Tomasel who represents Ms. B (Ms. B), that her client who is present in the court room is not the mother of X. She was served with the motion, and she wants to participate to the debate as the caregiver for X. [ 4 ] As the Court and the other lawyers were very surprised with this situation, the Court asked X to live the court room during the time this question is clarified. [ 5 ] Ms.

B explains that her mother, Ms. A adopted X when he was a few days old. Sadly, Ms. B’s mother passed away when X was around one year old. Since the death, Ms. B take care of X. [ 6 ] The DYP mentioned that he was not aware, and was under the perception that the person present in the court room to whom the follow-up is provided was A, the adoptive mother of X. [ 7 ] The undersigned looked at the court file and noted that different applications were filed with the following names: - March 2011: Ms. B was identified as the mother; - December 2011: Ms. B was identified as the mother; - October 2012: Ms.

B identified as the mother; - November 2017: Ms. A was identified as the mother; - November 2018: Ms. A was identified as the mother; [ 8 ] When the Court was seized for the first time with the situation of X, the mother was deceased. [ 9 ] Considering the evidence, the DYP asks the Court to amend the application to mentioned Ms. A as “Mother – Deceased” and suggests that Ms. B be declared as an interested party.

[ 10 ] Me Tomasel and Me Neptune agree with this suggestion. The Court also agrees as it’s in the best interest of X to have his files conform to the reality and that Ms. B be declared as an interested party. [ 11 ] For those reasons, the Court authorizes the amendment and declares Ms. B as an interested party. Position of the parties [ 12 ] The interested party recognizes that the security and development of X are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 13 ] The youth who is 16 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune.

He recognizes that his security and development are still in danger and he agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 14 ] On February 15, 2011 , following a provisional hearing, X was entrusted to a foster family. [ 15 ] On March 29, 2011 , the Court was seized with the application for protection. X was 8 years old. Ms. B his caregiver, had alcohol consumption issues and was physically abusive towards him.

The Court declared that the security and development of X were in danger and entrusted him to a foster family for six months with a progressive reintegration if the situation allows it with aid counselling and assistance for a period of one year. [ 16 ] On December 13, 2011 , the evidence showed that X was doing very well in the foster family, and would like to stay there, but he would like to see his brother more frequently. Ms. B was still struggling with alcohol consumption issues, and her house was not safe for X. She agreed with the recommendation.

She admitted not having been totally available for the visits with X. She gave birth recently. Ms. B has a lot of difficulty to express what she wants in the future for her children. The Court maintained the placement in a foster family for ten months with a possible reintegration, with aid, counselling and assistance for a period of one year. [ 17 ] On October 10, 2012 , the situation of Ms. B was still the same. The police intervention was required many times with Ms. B’s boyfriend. He was now detained. X was still doing very well in the foster family. The Court entrusted him to Ms. D and Mr.

E until he reaches his majority. [ 18 ] On November 22, 2017 , the Court was seized with the revision. In January 2017, X declared that she situation was not going well at his foster home. He said being bullied and feeling rejected. He was entrusted to another foster family to give some respite, and a clinical follow-up was done to resolve the situation. X wanted to stay in his new foster family. The Court entrusted him to a foster family and strongly recommended that the foster family be the one of Mr. C. Facts [ 19 ] The situation at Mr.

C’s went well until May 2017, when X assaulted another youth in the house with a knife. The foster family did not want to keep him anymore. [ 20 ] X was entrusted to a new foster family, his biological mother. X is doing very well there and a positive improvement in his mood was noted since he is there. [ 21 ] Ms. B is still struggling with alcohol consumption issues, but she maintains regular contact with X. Analysis [ 22 ] It’s obvious that X is feeling very well with his biological mother, and his new environment brings him a stable, loving and caring place to evolve.

That being said, the Court insists on the importance to maintain a close follow-up with him. It’s important to keep in mind that as he was adopted, he could have a lot of questions about the reason of his adoption. He was taken care by the daughter of his adopted mother and he lived a lot of difficulty at that place. He was also moved from one foster family to another one. This instability risks to bring a lot of identity questions and he will need to be supported.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely to Ms. F; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the youth and the interested party take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the interested party remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the interested party be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the interested party and the foster family; [ 30 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des

Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: November 22, 2018