2021 QCCQ 9076, 2021 QCCQ 9076

Protection de la jeunesse — 211368 2021 QCCQ 9076 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 565-41-000390-191 DATE: February 9 th , 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LES CENTRES JEUNESSE A Applicant and X , born on [...], 2018 Child A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 75, 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 Court is seized of a motion under

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , whereby the Director of Youth Protection is seeking to revise and extend the decision rendered by this Court on July 7 th , 2020, in the situation of the child X, aged 2. [ 2 ] On that day, the Court declared that the child’s security and development were endangered as a result of a situation of physical neglect and a serious risk of neglect and ordered that the child be entrusted to the kinship foster family of Mrs. C.

The Court ordered that the mother’s contacts occur in the presence of a third party and be determined by agreement; in the absence of agreement, there were to be supervised. As to the father’s contacts, they were to be determined by agreement and if no agreement can be found, under supervision.

The Court also recommended that the parents undertake to receive various services in order to address their personal difficulties (addiction for both parents and parental abilities for the father). [ 3 ] The Director initially sought to revise the parents’ contact modalities (so that they be supervised) while prolonging the other protection measures for six months. At the hearing, the Director amended the motion and proposed a mere six-month extension. [ 4 ] Although duly informed of the hearing, the parents are not in attendance.

The father is not responding to the Director’s request to meet and discuss the matter and his position with regards to the motion is therefore unknown. As to the mother, she is said to be in agreement with the Director’s orientation. [ 5 ] The child’s counsel agrees with the motion while suggesting that flexibility is needed with regards to the contact modalities. ANALYSIS [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that the father is neither involved with the child nor collaborating with the Director’s intervention.

He has only seen the child once since the last judgment and does not inquire about the child’s development or wellbeing. [ 7 ] As to the mother, she is soon to give birth to another child and has relapsed (consumption) on a few occasions during her pregnancy. She has only recently began receiving services with regards to her addiction issues and is on a waiting list to participate in a therapy. The contacts between mother and child are going well.

They are mainly occurring by phone and video-conferencing, as the community where the child is currently living has imposed strict visitation rules in the context of the pandemic. [ 8 ] The child has started attending daycare and is developing well; she is thriving under the care of the kinship foster family, with whom she has developed a strong bond. The same can be said of her bond with her brother, who is entrusted to the same family. She is also in regular contact with other members of her extended family.

[ 9 ] The evolution of the situation since the last judgment does not make it possible to return the child to either parent at this time and it is clearly in her interest to remain entrusted to her kinship foster family who is responding to her every need.

As to the issue of contacts with her parents, the situation indeed requires some flexibility and room for agreement between the parties, bearing in mind the interest of the child and the evolution of the parents’ situation. [ 10 ] THEREFORE THE COURT : [ 11 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child remain endangered; [ 13 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on July 7 th , 2020; [ 14 ] ORDERS the execution of the following protective measures for a period of six months:

a) That the child be entrusted to the kinship foster family of Mrs. C;

a) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection of the [A] Integrated Health and Social Services Center provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family;

b) That contacts between the child and her mother be determined by agreement between the parties; if there is no agreement, the contacts will take place in the presence of a third party or supervised; TAKES NOTES that the social worker will make the necessary verifications with the authorities in the community where the child is entrusted so as to help facilitate the organisation of contacts;

c) That contacts between the child and her father be determined by agreement between the parties; if there is no agreement, the contacts will be supervised; [ 15 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents receive services to address their personal difficulties, including substance abuse; [ 16 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this decision. Signed on March 24 th , 2021 __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. M e Danielle Pharand Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection M e Andréa Caron Counsel for the child Date of hearing: February 9 th , 2021