2011 QCCQ 8067, 2011 QCCQ 8067

Protection de la jeunesse — 112103 2011 QCCQ 8067 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001232-096 DATE: April 8, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, 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 C.Y.P.C. working in City A, district A, Québec Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in City A, district A, Québec, Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on May 26, 2010, concerning X, born on […], 2009. [ 2 ] The father is not declared and the mother left the courthouse premises, came back and left not to return. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue, considering the absence of the mother.

Nevertheless, the recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection for an extension of twelve (12) months and the motives supporting the demand triggers interrogations. III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The mother was released from detention in the spring of 2010. Access and visitation rights were organised by way of a calendar given to the mother. [ 5 ] She visited the child only once and did not required additional contacts. Detained again and released in November 2010, the mother did not collaborate with youth protection services.

The social worker saw the mother in January 2011 and she was under the influence of alcohol.

[ 6 ] Consequently, there is no existing bond between the mother and the child. [ 7 ] The child has been with the same foster family since the age of 3 months. There is a strong bond between the child and the foster mother. Up until very recently, the foster mother was interested in assuming the child on a long-term basis. For reasons that are unclear, she has changed her mind.

Even if ready to assume the child until another foster family is identified, she would prefer that the child be removed as soon as possible. [ 8 ] Consequently, the Director of Youth Protection demands an extension of twelve (12) months in order to put in place a life project for the child. According to the evidence tendered, it is difficult to find an [origin A] family in the A area. The Director wants to avoid numerous foster care measures. [ 9 ] As the lawyers pointed out to the Court, the legal delays outlined in

section 91.1 of the Law have expired since long. The situation is very particular and even if the Court understands the dilemma faced by the Director of Youth Protection, the interest of the child and the respects of his rights are above organisational difficulties. [ 10 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the extension demanded in not in the interest of the child and cannot be granted.

The situation of the child constitutes an absolute priority and will have to be dealt accordingly. [ 11 ] A period of six (6) months should be sufficient to identify a family ready to receive the child on a permanent basis, if adoption is not possible. [ 12 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 14 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child in danger; [ 15 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on May 26 2010, for a period of six (6) months; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that a life project be put in place within a six (6) months period; [ 17 ] ENTRUTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the child Me Stéphanie Lachance Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: March 1, 2011