2012 QCCQ 7946, 2012 QCCQ 7946

Protection de la jeunesse — 121669 2012 QCCQ 7946 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000352-101 DATE: April 26, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born […] , 1997 BASTIEN GENDREAU , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A, working in A Applicant v.

A , residing and domiciled in B, district of A, province of Quebec Adoptive mother and B , residing and domiciled in A, district of A, province of Quebec Adoptive father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for the review of a petition under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , concerning X born […], 1997. [ 2 ] AT the hearing, the youth was present and represented by counsel. The adoptive mother was absent although she was duly served. The adoptive father was present and represented by Me Marie-Claude Degagné. II – THE FACTS [ 3 ] On February 3, 2011, Honourable Nancy McKenna rendered a judgment to review the situation of the youth.

Based on the fact that the security and development of the child remained endangered due to his parents' abandonment and, to a lesser extent, to the youth's serious behavioural disturbances, the youth was placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of five months. [ 4 ] The evidence tendered by way of admissions convinces the Court that the security and development of the youth remain endangered. [ 5 ] Since the last Court hearing, from January 25 to March 21, 2011, the youth was placed at the A rehabilitation centre where he significantly improved his behaviour.

On March 21, 2011, he was transferred to the A groupe home because he had met the objectives of his rehabilitation process. [ 6 ] In the first two months of his stay, he was doing very well. His situation became less positive in May when he started visiting his mother at her sister's house. [ 7 ] On June 9, 2011, the youth integrated the foster family of Mr. Junior and Mrs. Betsy Gordon. At first, he said he was pleased to live with the foster family. But, on July 2011, he started running away to his father's home.

The foster parents began showing less collaboration and the youth had to be transferred on August 31, 2011 to a new foster home. [ 8 ] He was then integrated into the foster home of Mr. C and Mrs. D. Following the integration his behaviour significantly improved. According to the foster parents, X behaves perfectly at home. He respects the rules and helps with family chores. He attends school every day and works part time at the grocery store. The foster parents are taking care of him like one of their children.

The stable and structuring environment provided by the foster parents has a positive impact on the life of X. III – MEASURES TO BE REVIEWED [ 9 ] Contacts between the parents and the youth are irregular. During the rehabilitation process, the father never asked for a visit.

He saw his mother a few times last summer but she returned to city B without advising her son and the Social Worker. The parents’ personal issues contributed to their lack of parenting skills and their inability to offer a proper environment to their son. [ 10 ] As it was mentioned in the last Court judgment, the youth deserves security and stability. It is in his best interest to provide him with a permanent life project to ensure his stability, which he desperately seeks and needs. [ 11 ] In the past months, the youth's situation had radically improved. The foster parents Mr. C and Mrs.

D are ready to get involved in a long-term placement. He is part of the family and they are taking care of him like their own child. [ 12 ] The Court is convinced that it is in the best interest of X to be entrusted to the foster family of Mr. C and Mrs.

D until majority. [ 13 ] FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X A are still endangered; [ 16 ] ORDERS that X be placed in the foster family of C and D until majority; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the exercises of certain attributes of parental authority relating to medical, school and travel authorisations be withdraw from the parents and granted to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his parents until majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and collaborate with Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the terms and conditions; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present order. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. Me Mathieu Brassard For the youth Me Marianne Bourget-Gagnon For the applicant Me Marie-Claude Degagné For the father Date of hearing: February 21, 2012