2017 QCCQ 700, 2017 QCCQ 700

Protection de la jeunesse — 1738 2017 QCCQ 700 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001630-133 and 640-41-001956-157 DATE: January 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2012 Y, born on [...], 2014 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, District A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (par. 1) and 75 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court is seized of two applications for the extension of the measures ordered on July 12, 2016 concerning the situations of X, 4 years old, and Y, 2 years old.

The applicant, Mrs [social worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., asks for the children’s placement in a foster family until their majority. [ 2 ] The parents are present at the hearing, assisted by Me Marie-Claude De Gagné (mother) and Me Angèle Tommasel (father).

The children are represented by Me Joannie Jacob and Me Aubrée Coutanson represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The evidence consists of the parties’ admissions, the review reports and the testimonies of Mrs [social worker 1], Mrs C, foster family resource, the mother, the maternal grandmother, the father and the paternal grandmother. [ 4 ] Even if the parents admit many facts alleged in the motion, they disagree with the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection.

They want the children to be entrusted with their grandmothers. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals the following facts. [ 6 ] X, 4 years old, was placed in a foster home the first time in August 2013 because of the alcohol and violence related problems of her parents. Just before, the child was entrusted to the paternal grandparents for six months on voluntary measures.

But because the parents did not respect the measures, the grandparents ended their investment in July 21, 2013. [ 7 ] A judgment declaring her security and development endangered was rendered on September 6, 2013 and the child X was entrusted to the paternal grandmother for six months. [ 8 ] On February 6, 2014, a revision judgment was rendered and the child was placed in a foster family for another period of six months with possible reinsertion with the mother. [ 9 ] At the time, the foster family was the maternal grandmother where she was living since December 22, 2013. [ 10 ] On August 2014, because the parents still display drinking, conjugal violence problems, because the mother was caught trafficking drugs to the father while he was detained at the police station and arrested for assaulting two persons while intoxicated, because of the pregnancy of the mother and the fact that she was on the waiting list to attend a detoxification centre, the child was entrusted to a foster family until February 2015.

At the time, the foster family was the great aunt of the mother in Town B. [ 11 ] On February 2015, the child’s situation was revised, and again, the judge mentioned that : « the parents must realize that the next months are not neutral for X. She had been moved from foster family to foster family. She now deserves to know where she will

nest for the next years ». [ 12 ] Y was born on [...], 2014 during the mother’s therapy in A. But, the mother did not complete her therapy because of the father’s pressure. From October 2014, Y was under the care of her paternal grandmother. In May 2015, she went with the maternal grandmother, and on July 9, she was sent with her sister to a foster family in Inukjuak. [ 13 ] On October 2015, following an information provided by the mother, Y and X had to integrate a new foster family in Town A.

That family was ready to keep the children until a permanent foster family was found for them. [ 14 ] In her judgment, Judge Lise Gagnon wrote that the Director of Youth Protection was supposed to determine a life plan for X, but unfortunately, no foster family could be found. At the time, the children cumulated approximatively 32 transfers, and consequently, the judge declared that their rights were infringed. [ 15 ] Last August 2016, the undersigned revised the children’s situation and they were entrusted to a specific foster family for four months.

They were living then with a new foster family, found with the collaboration of the Youth Centres in Town B. Such placement for four months was ordered to further stabilize the life plan of the children and ultimately to allow the parents to work very hard on their personal life and issues. [ 16 ] During all those months, the parents’ situation remains problematic.

Alcohol, violence, arrests, detention, instability, lack of maturity, all those problems remain and they are still important issues. [ 17 ] Now, the evidence reveals that the children are in the foster home of Mrs C in the area of Montréal since January 2016 and they are very well adapted to their new home. [ 18 ] The children receive all medical attention they need especially in regards of Y’s epilepsy. An external educator also follows the children to facilitate their adaptation. The two children are very attached to the foster parents and X is protective towards Y.

They both attend a daycare, and now, they are well adapted to their daily routine. The foster mother and her spouse are attached to the children and are ready to assume them until their majority. They are also ready to favour development of the Inuit culture by attending with them social events and participating in Inuit associations. [ 19 ] The children came for a home visit last August 15 until August 29, 2016. The mother received them and admitted that she was tired after the visit. During the visit, the mother had a black eye for an unknown reason.

The parents remained sober during the visit and unannounced visits were made by the social worker. The children also received visits of their mother and grandmother. [ 20 ] Evidence reveals that the parents’ situation remain problematic. The mother wants to attend Portage again. Her situation improves a little over the last month. She said she ended her relationship with the father and is sober for the last two weeks.

But events related by the social worker create a doubt. [ 21 ] The parents acknowledge they cannot assume the children and they did not seek for services and this is the reason why they want each child to be entrusted to a grandmother. [ 22 ] The maternal grandmother has a place left in her house and come to testify at the father’s request. She and her pregnant 17 years old daughter are able to assume X. [ 23 ] The paternal grandmother is ready to assume Y. Now, she only works part time. She will receive help of her own children. Three of them with their own children live at her place.

As the maternal grandmother, she does not allow drunk people in her house. They are both concerned for the Inuit culture of Y and X. [ 24 ] The review of all the evidence provided justifies the Court to conclude that the parents’ problems are chronic. Their lack of maturity prevents them of any significant improvement.

The honesty of the grandmothers and their objectivity are impressive, but they are not involved in regards of the children’s best interest. [ 25 ] The basic needs of the children, stability, security, love and trust in significant adults have to be the priorities of the adult who will assume them. [ 26 ] The Court is disappointed to hear that no foster family on long-term basis is available up North. In previous judgments, such observations were made, and even with the intervention of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, this lack is still problematic. [ 27 ] In regard of

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act, the Court must ensure continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the children’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS the placement of X and Y in a foster family until their majority; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the children remain placed in the foster family of Mrs C; [ 32 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the contacts and visits of the parents with the children (modalities, frequency and degree of supervision) and to favour contacts with the grandmothers;

[ 33 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents until the children reach their majority; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to seek help through Social Services for their alcohol and personal issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the present judgment; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Claude De Gagné Attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the father Me Joannie Jacob Attorney for the children Date of hearing: November 10, 2016