2020 QCCQ 10866, 2020 QCCQ 10866

Protection de la jeunesse — 207775 2020 QCCQ 10866 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000673-209 DATE: November 26, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2009 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 director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security or development of the child is in danger, according to

section 38 b)1)iii) of the Youth protection Act , because of neglect on an educational level (parental attitudes and environment). [ 2 ] At the hearing, neither of the parents are present, only the mother is represented by a lawyer. Even if the latter denies or denies as written some facts, she, nonetheless, agrees with the recommendations of the DYP. Concerning the father, an exemption from notification of the application is granted since he is completely absent from the child’s life, and this, from the very beginning of his life.

The child is duly represented, and his counsel expresses her consent to the measures proposed by the DYP. All the parties consent to the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. [ 3 ] Since 2012, the DYP has been involved with the child. The mother has a drug addiction and was not able to provide a secure environment. A voluntary measure was put in place between 2012 and 2014 in which the child was entrusted to the maternal grandmother. His sisters and his brother were also entrusted to a foster family. Since 2014, the child lives between his mother and maternal grandmother.

The mother has been struggling with her addictions for a few years now. She follows a treatment plan, and it has been going great. [ 4 ] The mother collaborates very well with the DYP and works with them. She is motivated to change her way of life and takes the necessary steps to reach that goal. She really makes efforts to improve her situation. She has a follow-up with a counselor to work notably, on her drug addiction, her unresolved issues, her repressed anger and her past trauma.

Moreover, she intends to pursue it in the future. [ 5 ] The father resides in the [Country A], and he is not involved in the child’s life. He presumably signed documents to be released of any parental responsibilities to his son. • Foster Family [ 6 ] Even if the parties, particularly the mother, do not contest the measures, still the Court is stunned after hearing the youth delegate’s testimony. We learned that the child must be moved from foster home. Initially, it is indicated that it is to integrate the same family as members of his siblings then finally it is rather in another family.

[ 7 ] Indeed, the evidence shows that the objective is to reintegrate the child into his maternal environment in about six months. It is difficult to reconcile learning that the child will change environment twice in such a short time. He will move from his current foster family to another family and then to his mother. This situation is far from stable and ideal for the child. The Court thinks that a gradual reintegration with the mother should be considered instead of removing the child from one home to another.

There is nothing in the evidence showing that the mother would not be able to care for the child, especially, since he would be alone with her. [ 8 ] According to the DYP, there is no need to rush things. Given it has not been long since the mother had improved her situation, the mother still needs a lot of support to ensure that she stays stable and sober. The situation remains delicate and fragile since she had a relapse in September 2020. Recently, the mother had just changed her treatment plan, in the end of October 2020. She has been showing stability ever since.

The mother knows that her child needs to be removed from his current foster family, and she is in an agreement with it. The DYP is aiming for a 6-month measure to continue working with the mother in order to reintegrate progressively the child to her and for it to be a success. [ 9 ] Considering the mother’s history, it is understandable that DYP acts with caution, but all possible and conceivable scenarios must be considered.

Some credits and encouragement should be given to the mother by allowing her to have more access to the child and even sleepovers. [ 10 ] For all the reasons mention on the above, the Court thinks that some conclusions should be added in order that it opens more possibilities to be able to work with, if the mother’s situation continues to evolve favorably. • Supervised contacts [ 11 ] In the last judgment rendered concerning the child’s siblings; the mother’s situation had changed positively.

For this reason, the Court raises that it is appropriate to lift the supervision as soon as possible, if the contacts go well, as it appears from the following quote from the judgment: “[18] Now, the mother is aware that she has to care for all her children during their contacts. She will have the possibility to demonstrate that she can manage all of them, without help. However, specific moment could be given to the older children versus the youngest, in order to have quality time with all of them. [19] Of course, the supervision as to be lifted as soon as unnecessary.

It will be appropriate to extend the period of access in order to remove the supervision very soon. Let’s not forget that the mother is adequate during visitations, we will see how it goes with all of them before taking a step further, considering the history [1] ." [ 12 ] The youth delegate points out that contacts between mother and child have been going well since her last court hearing on August 5, 2020, with regard to her other children.

It is incomprehensible that since then the supervision has not been reduced, at first glance, to a complete withdrawal. [ 13 ] When questioning the youth delegate on the reason for maintaining supervision, she emphasizes that it is requested that supervision continues, if deemed necessary, in case the situation deteriorates. [ 14 ] In order to request contacts to be supervised, it is still necessary that the evidence shows this is required, which is clearly not the case in this file.

Admittedly, the mother does not dispute the supervision of the contacts, but the Court must still rely on the evidence before deciding. The mother benefits from contact with her son, about 20 hours per week. Everything is fine with the mother, which the youth delegate confirms. Supervision of contacts was expected to be temporary as the mother had several children and her ability to care for them all together was doubted. [ 15 ] In addition, there were fears about her drug addictions. On this aspect nothing, in particular, is raised despite the fact she had a relapse in September 2020, which we know little about.

However, everything seems to be under control since. From August 2020 until this day, there is not much to say against the mother. After hearing the testimonial and documentary evidence, the Court cannot agree to the continuation of the supervised contacts. [ 16 ] Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduces, the application is well founded. Furthermore, these measures appear to be in the child’s best interest, with the conclusions added and modified by the Court.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 b)1)iii) of the Youth protection act ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family designated by the DYP until May 31, 2021; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be determined according to agreement between the parties; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES that the child benefit from outings of more than 15 consecutive days with his mother, if the situation allows it; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES that the child benefits from a progressive integration with the mother starting March 1 st , 2021; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contact between the child and his grandmother, C are determined according to agreement between the parties and that they are supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP;

[ 24 ] RECOMMENDS the mother continues to involve herself for addiction counselling and follow-up if deemed necessary by the professional; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to submit herself to random screening of drug tests; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child’s mother report periodically to the Director on the measures she applies on her own regard or in her child’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 27 ] ORDERS the mother to actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until May 31, 2021; [ 29 ] 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. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Ariane Cayer for the child Me Ann-Chloé Boudreau for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: November 18, 2020