2017 QCCQ 19981, 2017 QCCQ 19981

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710352 2017 QCCQ 19981 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001608-139 DATE: February 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2010 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND B MOTHER AND C FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 Director of Youth Protection submits a motion to review and extend a decision rendered on January 8, 2015, by Judge Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q. [ 2 ] The father is present and represented by Mtre.

Michel Grenier. Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis acts on behalf of the child. Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault speaks for the applicant.

Despite being served with the motion, the mother is not present. [ 3 ] The father admits the following facts : ▪ The parents still struggle with alcohol abuse; ▪ The parents have not collaborated to the social follow-up; ▪ The mother has not contacted the child and there has been no visits; ▪ The father contacted X trough social media on an average of once per month, but there has been no visits; ▪ The child has seen her siblings when her foster parents would come to Town A; [ 4 ] The father now has a job at the arena.

He would like that X live in Town A instead of Town B. [ 5 ] X was placed in the same foster family as her brother Y in Town B; [ 6 ] In June 2015, until the last court date in January 2016, she lived in Town C.

Unfortunately, the foster family decided not to commit themselves to a life plan with the child. [ 7 ] In the court written decision dated January 8, 2016, Judge Lucille Beauchemin wrote: “And, unless an exceptional and consistent mobilizing of the parents in different services is maintained, the objective of developing a life plan for the child must be decided.“ [ 8 ] It was also the goal of the previous court decision dated April 9. 2015, when Judge Lise Gagnon ordered that a life plan be established for X during the following six months.

[ 9 ] At the present hearing, the Director is seeking a six-month placement in order to prepare a life plan for X. [ 10 ] Last November, an aunt requested to have the child in a long term placement. Mrs. D and Mr. E were positively assessed to act as foster family. As they live in Town A, it means that X would have to move, change school again, adapt to a new environment, a new foster family, if not mistaken, at least her fourth. [ 11 ] Her last integration in a foster family has been difficult.

In the revision report, it is written: “It was not easy at first for her to adapt to her new environment in Town B but with time and patience, thing (sic) got better and she was able to create (sic) bond with Z and A and the rest of the family.” [1] [ 12 ] The current foster family would agree to take care of X on a long term placement. The decision of the Director to move her to Town A demonstrates that they decided to have the extended family connection prevail over the stability and the bond already developed with the current foster family.

It is not an easy decision to take given the fact that X has been assessed by a psychologist who determined the following: “X is a young child who is having important adjustment problems ( oppositional behaviour, hyperactivity , anxiety symptoms ) revealing very low coping skills and an insecure attachment. Since she has been removed from her biological parents, the child has not be able to develop a secure attachment with her foster parents. Because X has not developed yet a secure attachment with any significant adult, a long term orientation has to be decided as soon as possible.

If X’s parents can change their lifestyle and want to take their children back with them, it has to happen within the next six months otherwise X will stay in a “in between” situation, without developing a secure attachment with caregivers and will probably resist for a long time before to trust her foster family or any other adult.

If there is a negative prognostic regarding the biological parents’ capacities to change their lifestyle and if they are not able to provide a stable routine, a safe, secure and nurturing environment for X, then a long term orientation should be decided as soon as possible for X’s best interest.” [2] [ 13 ] This was written in 2015, and at the present hearing, the Director is still requesting six months to establish a life plan, almost two year after the psychological assessment. We all know that the capacity of a child to create bonds comes, at one point, to a limit.

Will she be able to adapt and create a new bond? Mr. Gagnon testified that as she was able to do it with the two previous foster families and as she is now medicated for her hyperactivity, it demonstrates that she should be able to do so again. The Court would like to be as positive as Mr.

Gagnon seems to be. [ 14 ] Very honestly, the applicant divulged to the Court that the father of the proposed foster family is her son, which does not appear to be in accordance with professional and ethical standards. [ 15 ] She also disclosed, the day before the hearing, that her son smokes cannabis three times a day and that he drives the snowmobile under the influence of such substance. [ 16 ] The parents of the new foster family are probably very good people.

The fact is that they have never taken the witness stand and the Court has no commitment by the foster father regarding his substance consumption. [ 17 ] At this stage, the Court agrees with the child’s counsel that this change of foster family, with the elements as presented today, is not in the best interest of X and is premature. [ 18 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS this motion; [ 20 ] MAINTAINS that the security and the development of the child are still endangered; [ 21 ] ORDERS the placements of X in a foster family for a period of five months; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to establish a life plan for X, taking her special needs into consideration; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the child be kept in the same foster family until the next Court hearing that will be in five months and, meanwhile, the Director of Youth Protection will establish a life plan for this child, beginning with the foster family where she is currently fostered; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her parents for a period of five months; [ 25 ] ORDERS that access rights between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for their frequency and modalities; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child receive all medical health care and health services required by her situation; [ 27 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding medical, educational, sporting and social activities; [ 28 ] GRANTS the exercises of these attributes to the Director of Youth Protection for a period of five months; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

__________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault DYP A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the parents Date of hearing: January 6, 2017