2016 QCCQ 10912, 2016 QCCQ 10912

Protection de la jeunesse — 164747 2016 QCCQ 10912 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000383-159 DATE: July 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on […], 2014 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 child was removed from her parents’ care in 2015, to be entrusted to a foster family. [ 2 ] At the time, the child and her sister suffer major neglect and the parents cannot meet their basic needs. Both children have to cope with severe developmental delays. [ 3 ] On July 6, 2015, the Court orders that the child be entrusted to a foster family.

The director of youth protection (DYP) now asks the Court to revise and extend that judgment, in order to entrust the child to foster care until she reaches her majority. [ 4 ] The parents consent to the recommended measures, but want the Court to fix contacts between themselves and their daughter.

They wish that visits take place twice a week and last three hours. [ 5 ] The DYP foresees that contacts be reduced, and eventually take place once every two weeks. [ 6 ] At the end of the hearing, the child’s counsel submits that contacts once a week, for a few hours, would be appropriate. [ 7 ] The situation, since the last Court order, can be summarized as follows. [ 8 ] The parents are invited to numerous appointments with professionals who provide services to the child. They attend very few of them, despite being advised that their presence is important.

Transportation is an issue for them, but they refuse to use public transport. The parents were also asked to provide blood samples in order to investigate their children and clarify possible diagnosis, but they did not comply. [ 9 ] The parents are not able to prioritize their children’s needs. Their lack of involvement keeps them from learning to answer the child’s special needs. The father remains very reluctant to services.

The mother is more open, but she could not be the child’s main caregiver because of her intellectual limitations. [ 10 ] Despite judgments and explanations provided by professionals, the parents seem not to understand why the DYP is involved in their life. [ 11 ] The child visits her parents, at home, weekly. The parents are able to pay attention and provide affection to the child during contacts. They play with her. However, they lack abilities on supervision and structure levels.

The foster family takes care of transportation to and from the parents’ home. [ 12 ] At beginning of October, the DYP suggests that parents spend more time with the child. They answer that they are satisfied with

the visits as scheduled before. Since the DYP wishes that children stay home longer to integrate daily routine and stimulation activities, the parents accept. Visits are then scheduled once a week, for a full day. [ 13 ] However, in November, visits during lunch time have to cease, because parents do not respect feeding recommendations provided by the occupational therapist. [ 14 ] Since then, visits take place twice a week and last two hours. [ 15 ] Several professionals, from various fields, meet with the child. She is still reco-vering from accumulated delays. She suffers from neurofibromatosis and epilepsy.

She needs regular follow-ups and a lot of stimulation in order to progress. The parents are not and most likely will not be able to meet those special needs. When living with them, she did not benefit from the necessary stimulation. She is now progressing very well. [ 16 ] The child develops a strong affective bond with her foster family, who takes good care of her on a daily basis. The foster family is committed to the child on the long term. [ 17 ] Nothing in the evidence demonstrates that regular contacts with her parents have a negative impact on the child.

The parents want to remain involved in their child’s life and it is a legitimate wish. However, the Court keeps in mind that the child has frequent meetings with professionals who fill up a significant part of her time. We also have to consider that we cannot foresee the child’s returning home and therefore visits do not aim towards preparing reintegration. Balancing all the circumstances, the Court conclu-des that weekly visits are reasonable.

Of course, it is difficult to plan it on the long term, so the parties may have to come back to court, eventually, if it does not meet the child’s needs anymore and they are not able to reach an agreement about other modalities. [ 18 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Her development would be at stake if she was entrusted to her parents. It is time to render a decision that will provide security and stability to that vulnerable child, on a long-term basis.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the petition for revision and extension of order; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 21 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 6, 2015; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family designated by the DYP, the one of Mrs.

C, until October 3, 2032, date of her majority; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign medical authorization for the child in case the parents are not reachable in due time; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the professionals involved in X’s situation to exchange all relevant information to the child well-being; [ 25 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her parents be determined by agreement between the parties and, if they fail to reach an agreement, ORDERS that contacts take place once a week, for two hours each time; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and her family until October 3, 2032; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the petitioner

Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Kimon Kling for the parents Date of hearing: June 6, 2016