2012 QCCQ 17890, 2012 QCCQ 17890

Protection de la jeunesse — 127351 2012 QCCQ 17890 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-014264-030 Date: June 13, 2012 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2000 [INTERVENANTE 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centers A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of June 13, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by justice Michel Jasmin, on July 20, 2010, whereby the now twelve year-old child, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30, 2011, followed by foster care placement, with aid, counsel and assistance, until the age of majority. [ 3 ] The Court also heard a similar motion regarding the child's older sister for which a separate judgment is rendered. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 3.1. the child remained in a rehabilitation centre; 3.2. the child's behaviour at school and academics have improved; 3.3. the child is also involved in extra-curricular activities; 3.4. the child has stabilized her situation but she continues to struggle with her personal issues, the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder diagnosis and boundary and attachment issues; 3.5. the child expresses she wishes to be integrated into a foster family; 3.6. the child does not speak of returning into her parent's care as she did in the past; 3.7. the parents have not communicated any valid address or telephone number to the Director of Youth Protection ; 3.8. the worker communicates mainly with the parents by e-mail or by leaving a message with the maternal grandfather; 3.9. the parents have not communicated to the Director of Youth Protection any changes in their personal lives nor any steps taken to improve their parenting abilities; 3.10. some of the visits were cancelled by the parents.

The father only attended one (1) visit, in April of 2011; 3.11. visits between the parents and the child were set on a monthly basis, for a period of two (2) hours, under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection ; 3.12. the mother expresses that she and the father are able to care for the child and sibling; 3.13. the child has had monthly visits with her paternal grandmother, and her younger sibling Y; 3.14. at the present time, the child needs to maintain her gains; 3.15. given the improvement in the child's situation and her expressed wished to be integrated in a foster family, it is necessary to find a foster family that will suit the child's specific needs (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with a possible integration to foster care, as well as aid, counsel and assistance, until she reaches the age of majority. [ 6 ] The child's parents were not present for the hearings. [ 7 ] In fact, despite the previous Court order that the parents advise the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address or telephone number within 48 hours, the delegate did not have any valid contact information for the parents for many months and was unable to communicate with them, except by email. [ 8 ] At the hearing of November 24, 2011, the case worker testified that the parents advised him by email that they did not intend to be present at the hearing. [ 9 ] At the March 14, 2012 hearing, the case worker testified that he was no longer authorized to communicate with clients by email.

However, he was given a new cellphone number to reach the parents and was able to speak to them. They were made aware of the recommendations and expressed their agreement. Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in their absence. [ 10 ] The child, assisted by Me Gauthier, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 11 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5 as evidence: D-1: Court Report written by [social worker 1] dated June 22 nd , 2011; D-2: Observation Report written by [social worker 2] dated May 25 th , 2011 (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-3: Addendum dated November 14 th , 2011 by [social worker 1]; D-4: Second Addendum dated March 1 st , 2012, by [social worker 1]; D-5: Third Addendum dated June 5 th , 2012, by [social worker 1]. [ 12 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion, more particularly, that the child was not ready to remain entrusted to foster care within the delays provided for in the previous Court order. [ 13 ] Consequently, on June 29, 2011 the child's provisional compulsory entrustment to a rehabilitation centre was ordered and the hearing was scheduled to proceed on August 9, 2011. [ 14 ] However, on that date, the child's counsel requested a postponement to allow for the assessment of a possible entrustment resource for the child.

There was no objection and the postponement was granted. [ 15 ] The case was then scheduled to proceed on November 24, 2011. However, the Director of Youth Protection then requested a three month postponement to assess additional prospective foster families [1] . [ 16 ] The case finally proceeded on March 14, 2012 and was continued on June 13, 2012. [ 17 ] In

summary, despite earlier setbacks, consistent gradual improvements in the child's behavior were observed, both in the rehabilitation centre and at school. Her progress is attributed in part to the positive effects of the medication (Concerta) prescribed to address her ADHD symptoms as well as to the child's participation in an ADHD Clinic – causing the Director of Youth Protection to

renew its efforts to find an appropriate foster home for the child [2] . [ 18 ] As for the parents, there is no evidence of any significant change in their situation. Monthly supervised visits continued to be scheduled with the child. Out of eleven visits between August 2010 and May 2011, the mother attended five visits, the father only one, in April 2011.

The parents' visits continued to be erratic in the following months, essentially following the same pattern. [ 19 ] Despite the inconsistency in the visits, the mother's interactions with the child are described as "appropriate and affectionate" and the child eagerly awaits the visits. However, there is no indication of any progression towards a greater degree of involvement by the parents in the child's life.

On the contrary, even the child has acknowledged and accepted that returning to her parents care is not a realistic possibility. [ 20 ] Consequently, a permanent plan is needed to fulfill the child's needs on a long-term basis. [ 21 ] Identifying a suitable foster home for the child is a delicate task and must take into account the impact of the neglect and numerous changes in caregivers that the child has already experienced. [ 22 ] It must be noted, however, that the child also has "many strengths. She is a very bright and sociable child.

She is inquisitive and independent", does well academically and participates in extra-curricular activities [3] , but can also be very demanding [4] . [ 23 ] In March 2012, attempts to find an appropriate foster home were still ongoing. The entrustment home identified by the child's counsel was not accepted further to a Clinical consultation in February 2012, since the family was deemed "unable to meet the specific needs" of the child [5] .

However, by June 2012 a foster family had finally been identified and approved by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 24 ] Consequently, the Court must determine whether the proposed entrustment resource or a foster family identified by Director of Youth Protection is best suited to provide a permanent plan for the child. [ 25 ] The Court heard the testimony of C and her husband D who were called by the child's attorney as they had expressed a strong interest in becoming an entrustment resource for the child. [ 26 ] Ms.

C described the strong feelings she had for the child whom she met in 2009 when she was working at the child's school as a special educator. [ 27 ] She last saw the child when she left the school in April 2010, with the exception of a subsequent brief visit to the school. [ 28 ] However, when she heard that the child had been placed in a rehabilitation centre, she wanted to reach out to the child and offer her help. She became extremely proactive and managed to reach the child's attorney to convey her offer to care for the child. [ 29 ] Ms.

C described the child's qualities and character, the closeness she felt they shared and the caring, stable environment she felt she could offer the child. [ 30 ] She was also very candid about some of the challenges she has faced in her own life, including suffering from depression for which she expects to take medication for the rest of her life. [ 31 ] She explained that she and her husband don't have any children but have taken steps towards adoption. However, they are willing to postpone the adoption, given the opportunity to become an entrustment resource for the child.

They also expressed their willingness to encourage contacts between the child and her sister. [ 32 ] However, as mentioned earlier, the family was not deemed suitable for the child by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 33 ] Although the couple's sincerity, generosity and kindness appear unquestionable, the Court concludes that an experienced foster family, as recommended by the Director of Youth Protection, would be more suitable for the child. [ 34 ] The Court reaches this conclusion for the following reasons: 1. the child's attachment to the couple is minimal; she only vaguely remembers her former educator whom she has not seen in years and has never met her husband; consequently, the child's perception and recollection of the bond she shared with her educator is very different form that expressed by Ms.

C; 2. the child has already experienced many changes and unsuccessful attempts at integration into a foster family; an experienced foster family accustomed to dealing with the challenges posed by children with attachment issues appears to offer a greater chance for stability which the child desperately needs; 3. the child expressed a strong desire to integrate a family with other children whereas the couple does not have any children; 4. finally, it should be mentioned that although counsel for the child called Ms.

C and her husband to attest to their willingness to help the child, counsel did not have any mandate to seek the child's entrustment to the couple. Counsel simply wished to make the possibility known.

In fact, although the child was aware of the couple's offer, she did not express any preference to be entrusted to them rather than placed in foster care and chose to leave the decision to the Court's discretion. [ 35 ] As for the length of the measures, the Court deems that an order until the child reaches the age of majority, as recommended by the Director of Youth Protection, is premature. [ 36 ] Time will be needed to confirm that the foster family identified by the Director of Youth Protection will, in fact, be able to fulfill the child's needs on a long-term basis and that the child will successfully adapt to the family.

[ 37 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 40 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 41 ] AUTHORIZES her integration to foster care; [ 42 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that a foster family that is expected to fulfil the child's needs on a long-term basis has already been identified, that the integration will begin as quickly as possible, and that the child is expected to be fully integrated into her new foster family by October 2012; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 44 ] MAINTAINS all other compatible measures ordered by Justice Michel Jasmin on July 20, 2010; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois / AN4195 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michèle Gauthier / AG7089 Attorney for the child Hearing dates: November 24, 2011, March 14 and June 13, 2012 . TD/vl