2016 QCCQ 9531, 2016 QCCQ 9531

Protection de la jeunesse — 16479 2016 QCCQ 9531 JG2072 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-007694-146 DATE : January 20 th , 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONORABLE MARIO GERVAIS J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- X , born on [..], 2011 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G E M E N T Sections 95(1) and (2) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with a Motion for Revision and Extension of a Court Decision, according to Sections 95(1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X , born on […], 2011. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the child requires the revision and extension of the Court Order rendered on March 13 th , 2015, for the reasons outlined in paragraph four of the motion. [ 3 ] The Director recommends, as key measures, that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director, taking act that the foster family is Mr.

C and Mrs. D, with a social follow up until he reaches his majority on […], 2029. Position of the parties and litigation [ 4 ] The parents formulate various admissions, which are noted in the minutes of the hearing. The father does not agree with the conclusions sought by the Director and would like custody of his child. However, if the Court were to order the placement of the child

until his majority, the father requests certain unsupervised visits with the child. The mother admits that she is unable to care for the child and wishes to maintain contacts with him. [ 5 ] The lawyer for the child is acting under a legal mandate. He ignores the allegations contained in the motion. He consents, in the interests of the child, with the placement of the child in the same foster family until he reaches his majority.

Description of the situation and analysis [ 6 ] The Director is aware of the child’s situation as there are voluntary measures and Court orders dating from December 2011 due to an ongoing cycle of substance abuse and a violent and unstable relationship between the parents.

Therefore, the security and development of the child have been declared in danger on the grounds of being subjected to parental neglect and to psychological ill- treatment. [ 7 ] The child’s history of placements is as follows: ➢ First placement, Court ordered, February 4 th - June 16 th , 2011; ➢ Second placement, voluntary measures, July 22 nd – September 19 th , 2013; ➢ Current placement, Court ordered, from June 4 th , 2014 until present; [ 8 ] From the start of his second placement until now, the child has been residing in the foster home of Mr. C and Mrs.

D. [ 9 ] The foster home takes good care of the child and properly responds to all his needs. The child evolves in a safe, secure, healthy and affectionate environment, which has stimulated him to accomplish substantial progress. [ 10 ] Under all Court orders, for a period of more than 18 months, the child has been living with this foster family without interruption.

This period adds up to more than 20 months when taking into consideration the child’s placement during summer 2013. [ 11 ] At the hearing preceding the Court Order rendered on November 12 th , 2014, the father testified that he had definitely ended his relationship with the mother and that he was committed to dealing with his personal difficulties to eventually resume the care of his child at the end of his placement. The father accepted to submit himself to random drug tests. [ 12 ] The Court then concluded that the situation required that the child remain in the care of a foster home for nine months.

This period was deemed sufficient «for the father to demonstrate that he has the abilities to regain custody of his child.

Otherwise, the Director will most likely have to elaborate a permanent life project for the child which excludes reinsertion within his family» [1] . [ 13 ] While the Court Order rendered on November 12 th , 2014, was in force: ➢ The parents maintained their unhealthy and unstable relationship which led to violent altercations and police intervention; ➢ The mother was overwhelmed by the addiction problem; ➢ The father, while he claimed that the random drug tests recommended in the last Court order would allow him to prove once and for all that he was off chemical drugs, was absent at the drug tests scheduled on December 8 th , 2014, and January 15 th , 2015, even when informed the previous night that such testing and transportation had been arranged; ➢ Visitation rights of the father had deteriorated as he was more focused on denigrating social services and the foster family in the presence of the child, rather than spending quality time with his son.

Numerous interventions by the Director to prevent such an attitude from the father were unsuccessful. ➢ In the last judgement rendered on March 13 th , 2015, the Court concluded that the situation still required that the child remain in the care of a foster home until the August 12 th , 2015, a period «deemed sufficient to measure the evolution of the situation as for the possibility or not of reinsertion of the child into his father’s care» [2] . [ 14 ] Since the last Court order, the evidence reveals the following: [ 15 ] Overall, the mother’s situation remains the same as depicted in the first judgment which declared the security and development of the child in danger. [ 16 ] The mother is struggling with a drug addiction problem that she has not been able to overcome for years.

She admitted to the Director that she also abused drugs with the father in the spring of 2015. [ 17 ] The mother unsuccessfully went through two detoxification treatments and was subjected to imprisonment for breach of probation. [ 18 ] There were periods during which the Director would lose track of the mother and that she would be absent from her child’s life. Otherwise, when sober, the mother’s supervised contacts with her child took place in a satisfactory manner.

[ 19 ] The mother has no specific plan to submit to the Court in order to resume the care of the child. In fact, considering the familial history, foreseeing such a reintegration would be totally unreasonable and detrimental to the child. [ 20 ] As for the father, his hostility towards social services and the foster home have grown exponentially.

Intense crises, insults and intimidation got to the point that social workers, depending on whom, would fear for their personal safety or would have to resort to colleagues to try to calm him down. [ 21 ] At the […] Social Services office, the father, at times, would be so out of control that it would become impossible for all social workers from the different agencies on the same floor to conduct their respective interviews with their clients. [ 22 ] All meetings between the father and social workers have recently begun to take place at the […] Peace Keepers police stations for safety reasons.

Such a measure, while not unprecedented, is highly exceptional. [ 23 ] During visitations, the father obsessively examines the child, denigrates the foster home and exposes the child to his attitude towards social workers as depicted above. This attitude has negative impacts on the child and puts him in a loyalty conflict. [ 24 ] Until the end of the summer, the father had a disorganised way of living, not working and consuming drugs.

In his testimony, he mentioned that he wanted to take time-off for himself. [ 25 ] Such a decision from the father is unreasonable, self-centered and inexplicable when taking into consideration the messages and issues that the Court has underlined in the previous judgments. [ 26 ] While the father was mostly devoting his energy towards fighting social services, the child has gone on with his life.

He has bonded with his foster parents who are now his real parental figures and who he spontaneously calls «mom» and «dad». [ 27 ] The foster family also considers the child as their own and is dedicated to ensuring his security, development and blooming on a long-term basis. [ 28 ] That does not mean that the father does not represent a figure of most importance for the child.

On the contrary, the child looks forward to his visits with his father and expresses sadness at the end of the visits. [ 29 ] The foster home acknowledges the importance of the parents in the child’s life and intends to take the proper measures in order to favour contacts between them. [ 30 ] The Court must also give proper consideration to the following facts: ➢ Recent random drug tests of the father in the fall of 2015 were negative as for the use of chemical drugs; ➢ The father is dealing with his issues with the criminal justice system and has been cleared of all warrants that existed in his files; ➢ The father has behaved in a generally positive manner during his last three visits with his child. [ 31 ] The Court concludes that the security and development of the child are still in danger. [ 32 ] The Court also concludes that there is no realistic prospect of familial reintegration, neither with the mother, nor with the father. [ 33 ] The roots of the child are now in his foster family, who are also a part of the [...] community.

The First Nation identity of the child is protected. [ 34 ] The only reason why the Court will not render a judgment placing the child until his majority is to establish parameters and goals for the father to reach in order to establish more normal contacts with his child in the near future. [ 35 ] The Court remains sensitive to the child’s reaction and affection he expresses for his father and the quality of their relationship. [ 36 ] The Court intends to pronounce a comprehensive life plan for the child. The Court is not in a position to do so now.

The recent evolution and attitude of the father, if maintained for a significant period, may lead to more flexible contacts. [ 37 ] The best interests of the child will be better served by addressing this aspect of the life plan at the end of the next Court Order. [ 38 ] To be clear, it has been determined that the permanent life plan for the child is for him to remain in the care of his current foster family. [ 39 ] The next Court Order will be crucial with regards to settling, on a long term basis, the terms of all contacts between the child and his father, as a Court Order until majority will then be rendered. [ 40 ] The same treatment will be applied to the parental authorizations needed from the father.

The Director has been facing reluctance and opposition from the father. This will ensure the Court that the child is now the center of his father’s life and that he will act in his best interests. [ 41 ] After having received the admissions, taken the reports produced and the testimonies heard into consideration, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are still in danger and that the situation gives rise to the measures sought, but only for a period of nine months. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 42 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 44 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on March 13 th , 2015; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection of A; [ 46 ] TAKES ACT that the foster family is Mr. C and Mrs.

D; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be set upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection at a frequency of once per week for a period of up to three hours and allow the parties to agree otherwise, including lifting the supervision by a third party; [ 48 ] TAKES ACT that for the present time, the father must present himself to the Peacekeeper station thirty minutes before the visit to assess his behaviour, and that the visitation will be rescheduled if the father is showing signs of intoxication and demonstrating denigrating, negative and out of control behaviour, unless otherwise agreed between the parties; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be set upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection when the mother requests a visit up to a maximum of one visit per week for up to three hours, and that the mother must present herself thirty minutes before the visit to assess her behaviour, unless otherwise agreed between the parties; [ 50 ] TAKES ACT that the visit will be rescheduled if the mother is showing signs of intoxication; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his extended family be set upon agreement between the parties; [ 52 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform the Director of the current situation; [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures ordered; [ 55 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of nine (9) months. ________________________________ Mario Gervais, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Langlois Attorney for the Director M e Jean-Pierre Gaudreau Attorney for the child M e Gisèle Tremblay Attorney for the mother Ms. Laurence Beaudoin, legal intern Attorney for the father Dates of the hearings: November 24 and December 18, 2015