2018 QCCQ 15116, 2018 QCCQ 15116

Protection de la jeunesse — 185928 2018 QCCQ 15116 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002173-182 DATE: August 31, 2018 (July 9, 2018) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...] , 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant v.

A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] The applicant, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, submits an application for protection of the child X born on [...], 2015. [ 2 ] The mother was not present or represented at the hearing. The application has been duly served to her. She was in fact present for a while during the day, but she left before the beginning of the hearing. THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 3 ] On May 25, 2017, the mother signed voluntary measures and admitted having hit her child.

At that time, the child was around 12 months old. [ 4 ] The voluntary measures were to the effect that the child would be entrusted to foster care for a period of three months, with possible reintegration with the mother. [ 5 ] The applicant made four attempts to reintegrate the child with the mother. Each time, during the reintegration process, the mother gave up or relapsed. She stated that it is too much for her to take care of the child on a full-time basis. [ 6 ] Even when the applicant tried to adapt the reintegration process to respect the mother’s pace, the process was not a success.

The mother was intoxicated by alcohol or marijuana. She did not inform the youth protection worker when she was unable to attend the visits. Obviously, the child was not her priority despite the fact that the applicant gave her many opportunities to show her motivation to have her daughter back with her. [ 7 ] In February, during the last attempt to reintegrate the child, she disappeared and the applicant was unable to locate her. She came back in mid-February but was unable to complete the process. She was often intoxicated.

She was not motivated and she gave many reasons to explain her lack of commitment. [ 8 ] Considering the difficulties in the reintegration process, the applicant finally reduced the

schedule of visits to one day per week. The applicant wished to prevent disappointment and instability for the child. [ 9 ] The Court can only conclude that the efforts made by the applicant for reintegration resulted in failure. The contact between the child and her mother has been extremely inconsistent. It is time to focus on the child’s needs and provide her with stable living conditions. [ 10 ] The Court clearly stated that it is important to prepare a life plan for this child.

She cannot wait any longer for her mother to become responsible and ready to meet her needs on a full-time basis. [ 11 ] The applicant recommends one final opportunity for the mother to resume care for her daughter if she decides, within a very

short period of three months maximum, to attend the program A. [ 12 ] The Court has some hesitation in allowing this opportunity because the child could be affected if the mother fails to complete the program. The attachment bond between the child and her mother is the main consideration in the Court’s acceptance of this recommendation.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the application; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child X, born on [...], 2015, is in danger in regards to ss. 38 ( b ) (2) and ( e ) (1)of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center until May 31, 2019; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan for the child; [ 17 ] ALLOWS the child to be under the mother’s care if they attend the mother and child program at Portage within three months of this order; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child’s mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child’s mother report in person or by phone, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in presence of the child; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from all violent behaviour in presence of the child; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help for her alcohol, drug and personal issues through social services; [ 23 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the mother be determined by the Director with respect to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until May 31, 2019; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q.

Mtre Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the child Mtre Sarah Bourgeois Lessard Attorney for the applicant Date of hearing: May 22, 2018