2018 QCCQ 20332, 2018 QCCQ 20332

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811609 2018 QCCQ 20332 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001232-096 DATE: November 19, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled in [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on January 26, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2009. At that date the Superior Court rendered a decision under

section 99 of the Youth Protection Act , granted the appeal and ordered that the child be entrusted to a foster family namely with her grandmother, Ms. B, until her majority. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation has to be revised and recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until November 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits all the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by Me Neptune.

She also admits all the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 5 ] On November 17, 2009 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 7 months old. The mother had been detained in June and July 2009. During her detention, the mother consented to entrust her daughter to her mother, but this latter said that she was too old and unable to take care of such a young baby on a full-time basis. At she was released, even if the grandmother paid the airplane ticket, the mother never went back in Town A. At the time of the hearing, she was detained in another file.

The mother had alcohol consumption issues and did not show any interest for the child. The Court declared that the situation of the child is in danger [1] and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of six months with a reintegration after three months if the situation allows it. [ 6 ] On May 26, 2010 , as the mother was just released from detention, and did not see her daughter for seven months, the Court revised the decision. The mother accepted to benefit from few services. The Court noted that X was developing well in the foster family.

The Court prolonged the placement for another six months with a possible reintegration after three months and ordered that services be provided for a period of twelve months. [ 7 ] In October 2010 , the DYP filed a motion for revision. As the mother was detained, the hearing was postponed and the child maintained in a foster family. In December 2010 and January 2011 , the Court did not have enough time to hear the motion for revision. The child was still entrusted in a foster family. [ 8 ] On March 1, 2011 , even if she had been released since November 2010, the mother did not collaborate with the DYP.

She still has alcohol consumption issues. The Court noted that no bonds were created between the child and the mother. X was in the same foster family since the beginning of the placement. The bonds were very good, but for an unknown reason the foster family did not want to continue and asked that X be removed from their house as soon as possible. A new life project had to be prepared, but it was very difficult to find an Inuit foster family on the [...] Coast.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of six months and ordered that a life project be drafted. [ 9 ] On October 11, 2011 , the Court was submitted with the revision. The situation of the mother remained the same, she was still struggling with alcohol issues, and because of that she was in detention in and off. She was not involved in the child life and did not

collaborate with the DYP. X was entrusted to a new foster family ready to keep her on a long term basis. The Court entrusted X to Ms. C until she reaches her majority. [ 10 ] On November 14, 2014 , as the foster family did not want to continue, the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted the child to a foster family chosen by the DYP. [ 11 ] On December 17, 2014 , the Court noted that the previous family was not able to continue to take care of X because of a personal situation and the child was entrusted to an extended family member.

The mother still has issues, but she expressed the wish to resolve her problem and to have her daughter back with her. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family (D, extended family) until June 19, 2015. [ 12 ] On June 6, 2015 , as the mother was not in an adequate state to present herself at the court house, the hearing was postponed and the measures prolonged. [ 13 ] On September 17, 2015 , the mother asked for a postponement and the grandmother asked to be declared interested party.

The Court postponed the hearing and entrust the child to the grandmother. [ 14 ] On November 13, 2015 , as the grandmother did not have time to file the application to be declared as an interested party, the file was postponed another time. [ 15 ] On December 12, 2015 , the Court noted that the child was with her grandmother since April. The mother admitted her issues, and not being able to have her daughter back under her care. The mother said that the grandmother’s place was not safe for X who had been bitten by a man in this house.

The mother completed [Center A] therapy and wanted to be more implicated in her daughter’s life in a way to be able to have her back soon. The Court noted that no Inuit foster families were available in the North to take care of X and it was necessary to find a foster family in the South. Between August 2014 and April 2015, X was entrusted to 20 different foster families. In April 2015, to stop this very sad situation, the DYP entrusted the child to her grandmother, but for a short period because the grandmother, who is 80 years old, was not able to take care of herself alone.

Also, the grandmother’s place was known to be unsafe because many people came there to drink. The DYP found a first foster family, but before the placement, they changed their mind. Finally, the DYP found a foster family in the South and asks the Court to entrust the child at this place.

The grandmother contested because of the difficulty at the grandmother’s place, the Court entrusted X to a foster family until the end of September 2016, and asks the mother and the grandmother to facilitate the transfer. [ 16 ] On September 14, 2016 , despite the previous decision rendered, the Court noted that the child remained with the grandmother. The DYP alleged that she developed strong bonds with her and was developing well. The grandmother was taking good care of her and was able to offer a safe environment. On her side, the situation of the mother remained the same and she was detained again.

The grandmother explained that if her health deprives her to take care of X, she would make an agreement with her son to take care of X. The DYP submitted that the situation is adequate for X, but the Court noted that in the court room, the grandmother needed a lot of help to walk and also a lot of help because of her loss of autonomy. The Court concluded that the decision of the Court was not respected and the rights of X have been breached.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until February 27, 2017. [ 17 ] On June 5, 2018 , Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy S.C.J., rendered a revision of the decision from October 2016. The execution of the Quebec Court decision was suspended and the appeal granted. The child was entrusted to her grandmother until she reaches her majority. Facts [ 18 ] X is now 9 years old. [ 19 ] In July 2018, the health of the grandmother started to deteriorate and she was hospitalized.

During, that time, X was left at the grandmother’s place with adults under influence and unreliable. [ 20 ] X was seen alone walking in the street and she started sniffing gas. The revision report [2] indicates that the risks associated with her behaviour had been explained to X and she understood. Questioned about X behaviour since that time, the DYP worker admits not being aware if X is still sniffing gas. [ 21 ] On August 23, 2018, the grandmother who is blind was hospitalized again as she was losing a lot of autonomy.

Unable to take care of X anymore, as she planned before, she made an agreement with her son, E (child’s uncle) who accepted to take care of her. The DYP worker started working for the DYP services in Town A one month ago. She does not know who took care of X between July (hospitalization of the grandmother) and the end of August 2018 (placement at the uncle’s place). [ 22 ] The DYP alleged that X is doing very well at her uncle’s, but for now is not able to indicate for how long the uncle will accept to take care of her.

The DYP worker does not know either how many children are living at the uncle’s place and how old are they. [ 23 ] In September 2018, X went back to school and found the door closed. She was entrusted to a foster family, but as the DYP considers that the best place for her is with a family member, the uncle and his spouse were met and this issue was resolved. [ 24 ] According to the DYP worker, X appreciates living at her uncle’s place and would like to stay there. [ 25 ] On November 1, 2018, the grandmother passed away.

X is affected by this loss and she needs to be supported in this grieving. [ 26 ] The mother was homeless for two years in Town B. She went back in July 2018, but according to the DYP worker, even if she is in the village now, she is not involved in her daughter’s life. The DYP worker met with the mother for the first time at the hearing. She supposed that the mother lives with her brother E, but she is not sure. Questioned about the contacts between X and her mother, she is not aware of.

Analysis [ 27 ] X who is only 9 years old, was entrusted to many foster families and three times she has been entrusted until she reached her majority. Three times the life project failed. [ 28 ] Each time, she develops strong bonds with her caregivers and had been removed from their care. More of that, she lost her grandmother, the most permanent significant person in her life. [ 29 ] His uncle seems to be open to take care of her, but the situation will have to be monitored closely. For sure, the best would be for her to stay with family members, but another important aspect to be considered is the permanency.

We can’t take the risk to impose her another failure. [ 30 ] A close follow-up is necessary with the uncle and his spouse to obtain their engagement shortly. [ 31 ] A close follow-up is also necessary with X. She needs to be supported and the adults in her life have to be vigilant to any signs of difficulty. She is at risk to develop symptoms of depression, attachment disorder or any other pathology because of the lack of stability in her life.

The behavioural issues have to be addressed as soon as they appear and when it’s known that a child is sniffing gas, the Court can’t explain how the DYP does not know if she is still sniffing or not. [ 32 ] Also, the facts that the worker is not sure if the mother is living with the uncle or not, raised concerns regarding the follow-up done at the uncle’s place since last August. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2009, are still in danger; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr. E and Ms.

F as a foster family if they are accredited as such; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive a psychological assessment to evaluate the risk of attachment disorder or other pathology as it was raised in the previous judgment; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 19, 2018