2017 QCCQ 4379, 2017 QCCQ 4379

Protection de la jeunesse — 171431 2017 QCCQ 4379 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000382-151 DATE: January 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2012 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JP2122 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 is removed from her parents’ care in May 2015, to be entrusted to an aunt. [ 2 ] At the time, the child and her younger sister suffer major neglect and the parents cannot meet their basic needs. Both children have to cope with severe developmental delays. [ 3 ] In January 2016, since the aunt is not able to take care of the child on a long term basis, the child integrates gradually a foster family.

She is there ever since. [ 4 ] On June 6, 2016, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family, for several months. Shortly after, the Court renders judgment concerning the child’s sister, entrusting her to a foster family until her age of majority. [ 5 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) now asks the Court to order that the child remain in foster care until her majority. The parents disagree with the recommended measures, arguing it is for too long. However, their situation remains the same as before. [ 6 ] The parents are invited to attend multiple appointments with professionals concerning the child.

As a result from neglect and lack of stimulation at an early age, the child suffered from developmental delays. They are now partially resolved, but the child has follow-ups in various fields. Parents fail to attend many meetings with professionals. Transportation is an issue for them but they still refuse to use public transport. Neither parent seem to understand the importance of participating in the child’s appointments. [ 7 ] Despite judgments and explanations provided by professionals, the parents still seem unable to understand why the DYP is involved in their life.

Moreover, the father remains very reluctant to services. Both parents refuse to acknowledge their difficulties, still denying them and stating they did not neglect their daughter. [ 8 ] Nothing leads the Court to foresee that the parents’ situation and attitude are likely to change in a predictable future. The child’s security as well as her development would be at stake if she was to be entrusted back to her parents’ care.

[ 9 ] Nevertheless, the child visits her parents weekly and is always happy to see them. The parents are able to answer her basic needs for limited periods of time. For the time being, those contacts meet the child’s interest and need not be supervised. They should go on that way, unless the parties come to a different agreement. [ 10 ] The child has lived in her foster family for more than a year. She created a bound with the foster parents. They are committed to take care of her on the long term. They provide the stimulation the child’s situation requires.

They also attend all appointments and apply recommendations. [ 11 ] The evidence convinces the Court that it is in the child’s best interest to remain in her foster family, as a life project, on a long term basis. However, parents still have a role to play in the child’s life and regular contacts have to maintained. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 14 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on June 6, 2016; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family designated by the DYP, namely the one of C and D, until her age of majority; [ 16 ] ORDERS that all contacts between the child and her parents be determined upon agreement between parties and if they fail to reach an agreement, they will be established by the Court; [ 17 ] AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in the situation of the child to exchange all information relevant to the child’s well-being; [ 18 ] AUTHORIZES the foster family to sign medical authorization for the child in case the parents are not reachable in due time; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until [...], 2030 (date of her majority); [ 20 ] 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 applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father

Written judgment filed on February 6, 2017