2011 QCCQ 6594, 2011 QCCQ 6594

Protection de la jeunesse — 11969 2011 QCCQ 6594 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000293-099 DATE: February 3, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C. working in CITY A; Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review and extension of a decision under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born on […], 2000. [ 2 ] The mother and the child are present and represented by a lawyer. They both admit most of the allegations of the petition and agree with its conclusions. [ 3 ] On August 25, 2009, Leduc J. declared the security and development of the child endangered due to the mother's addiction to alcohol and violence within the household. [ 4 ] On January 12, 2010, the Court reviewed and extended that judgment in accordance to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. At that time, the mother was trying to get her life in order in regards to her abuse of alcohol. She was then collaborating with the social services but failed to provide X with a structured environment, which she desperately needed.

The Court concluded that an additional chance could be given to the mother and consequently extended the period of placement for six months. [ 5 ] On July 12, 2010, Grégoire J. entrusted the child to a specialized foster family for a period of six months in order to provide X with a secure and supervised structure due to her attachment disorder. Grégoire J. concluded that X needed a specialized intervention. THE FACTS [ 6 ] The evidence demonstrates that since the last judgment, X has integrated a foster family in province A and can count on the support of [treatment team A].

The integration in her foster family went well as she gradually adjusted to the rules and structure imposed in her new environment. She has the unexpected capacity to function within a structured routine. Moreover, she benefits from constant academic supervision at school, which keeps her motivated and determined. [ 7 ] With the support of [treatment team A], X is now enjoying art therapy, which is a positive way for her to express herself.

Within this process, the child has recently verbalized being sexually abused in city A. [ 8 ] In September 2010, she returned to city A in order to attend the funeral of her maternal grandfather. The child was left without supervision, once again roaming from one house to the next. This hindered the progress made thus far. The mother wasn't present at the airport upon X's departure.

Afterwards, time and patience were needed to stabilize the child who was then resisting authority as well as adopting sexually inappropriate behaviour. [ 9 ] The evidence also shows that the mother failed to keep contact with her daughter and neglected to follow-up on her well- being. She asserts being ready to seek the necessary help for her addiction to alcohol. In that regard, she contemplates the possibility of attending the spring session at the treatment centre A.

[ 10 ] The evidence shows that X still needs a structured environment, which the mother cannot provide. Thus, the security and development of the child remain in danger. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 11 ] This aspect is not really challenged by the parties.

The Director of Youth protection recommends that the placement in a specialized foster home be extended for six months. [ 12 ] X is a highly vulnerable child with specials needs, which cannot presently be fulfilled by the mother. [ 13 ] The Director of Youth Protection's recommendation is reasonable, as the placement will allow X to continue in a stable environment in which her special needs can be addressed. [ 14 ] As for the mother, her addiction to alcohol remains an important issue when she is under the influence, she cannot attend to the specific needs of her daughter.

She must be aware that X cannot wait much longer for a major change in her mother's behaviour and attitude. [ 15 ] The next six months will be determinative as it allows verifying the true engagement of the mother towards her daughter.

It is up to the mother to act in a timely manner. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 2000, are still endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a specialized foster family for a period of six months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised according to the frequency and conditions determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard as well as in her daughter's regard to put an end to the situation, which endangers the security and development of the child; [ 23 ] TAKES KNOWLEDGE of the mother's consent to attend treatment for her addiction to alcohol and therefore ORDERS her to do so; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the mother for a period of nine months; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Girouard, Adam & associates Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Denis Trottier Legal Aid A Lawyer for the child M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: January 25, 2011