2022 QCCQ 14529, 2022 QCCQ 14529

Protection de la jeunesse — 229006 2022 QCCQ 14529 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001581-138 DATE: August 10, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 28, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A, deceased 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on December 15, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2009. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until December 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her father and asks that she be entrusted to Ms. C until the age of majority.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The youth is 13 years old. She is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On July 29, 2013 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. The parents displayed alcohol and drug consumption and conjugal violence issues.

The father sold drugs in the village. The child and his sibling were neglected. The house was messy and there was no food. The mother said that she is tired of beating her children. The children were entrusted to a foster family since May 24, 2013. Following that, the mother became less and less collaborative. The DYP worker had the feeling that the father would have the motivation to change his situation. Unfortunately, the father did not take advantage of all the visits that had been organized with his children.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered because she was neglected, victim of physical abuse and at risk to be a victim of physical abuse. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for 6 months. [ 6 ] On February 4, 2014 , the Court revised the situation and maintained the child in a foster family for another 6 months with a possibility of reintegration under the father’s care. After being placed in a foster family in Town A, the child had to be moved because the foster parents were overwhelmed with the child’s and the mother’s behaviours.

Because of such behaviours from the mother, no other foster family were found in Town A. The child was then entrusted to D in Town B, and she did very well. [ 7 ] On August 5, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The mother displayed the same issues for which she refused to receive help. She tried to commit suicide in front of the DYP worker. The father collaborated with the DYP. The Court maintained the child in her foster family and ordered that a life plan be prepared, the whole until February 18, 2015. [ 8 ] On February 18, 2015 , the Court revised the situation. The child was doing very well in Ms.

D’s family. Ms. D was ready to

foster her until majority. The father was sober from drugs and alcohol for one year, but the conjugal relationship with the mother continued to be very conflictual. The parents did not exercise the contacts that were offered to them. The Court entrusted the child to Ms. D until she reaches her majority. [ 9 ] On May 12, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. In April 2019, the DYP had to intervene in the foster family because another foster child had disclosed sexual abuse from the foster father and foster family’s son. Ms. D left the house with X to ensure her safety, but in October, Ms.

D told the DYP that she could not take care of the child anymore. X never disclosed any sexual assault, but she reacted very strongly after having watched the video “good touch, bad touch” at school. She cried a lot and refused to go back to her foster family. X had been entrusted to a relative of the foster parents, and since then she is doing well. The parents were not involved in the life of the child. The father was still living in Town A, but the mother was homeless in Town C and she did not give any news.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family. The Court also ordered that the child receive a Social Services follow-up and a psychological assessment, the whole until December 31, 2020. [ 10 ] On December 15, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The youth was 12 years old. From May 2020 to November 2020, the youth had been entrusted to 3 different foster families and she went to a fourth one starting in November.

The youth asked to be entrusted to a previous foster family living in Town B, but the DYP had closed this foster family due to sexual abuse allegations. The DYP found a new foster family in Town A. The youth has relatives there with whom she has a good relationship. The mother was homeless in Town C. The father was still living in the North, but continued to be not involved in the child’s life. The Court entrusted the youth to a foster family until December 31, 2021.

Facts and Analysis [ 11 ] The application for revision was supposed to be heard in April, but the mother was hospitalized with very serious medical conditions. By respect for the family, the DYP asked to postpone the hearing. [ 12 ] The mother passed away in May 2022. [ 13 ] The father is still living in Town A. He is not involved in the life of the youth and he recognized not having asked any contact with her since the last decision. [ 14 ] During that time, the youth remained with Ms. C. She is there since January 10, 2021, and she evolves very well.

Since the beginning of the placement, the youth developed strong bond with her foster mother who is also very attached to her. [ 15 ] The situation of the father did not evolve positively. Due to his incapacity to resume the care of his daughter, a placement until the majority had been ordered in February 2015. Unfortunately, this placement had to be ended, but luckily, the youth had been able to create strong bonds with a new foster family. [ 16 ] The maximum period of placement had been reached and according to the law, the Court has to render a permanent decision.

The plan suggested by the DYP fulfills the youth’s needs and respects her desire. [ 17 ] The father acknowledges the situation and honestly agrees with the DYP’s recommendations. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2009, are still endangered; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to Ms. C, as a foster family if she is accredited as such, until the age of majority; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the father and granted to Ms.

C, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE until May 2, 2027.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 10, 2022