2010 QCCQ 13986, 2010 QCCQ 13986

Protection de la jeunesse — 101645 2010 QCCQ 13986 JL3389 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 525-41-020116-075 DATE : April 27 th , 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONORABLE MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , in her capacity as person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant - and - A , the mother - and - B , party - and - La commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 91 and 95, Youth Protection Act, L.R.Q.c.P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on April 27 th , 2010. [ 2 ] The Court is seized with a motion to review and extend an order rendered on December 22 nd , 2009, concerning X , which order expires on June 22 nd , 2010. [ 3 ] Essentially, the Director of Youth Protection sustains that: 3.1 Mr.

B has criminal conditions to respect, which include an order to not communicate with the foster mother; 3.2 Nevertheless, Mr. B is constantly calling the foster mother against her wishes; 3.3 Mr. B showed up unexpectedly at the foster mother's home; 3.4 Mr. B's behaviour is disruptive to the child; 3.5 The confidentiality of the foster mother's coordinates is necessary in respect to the best interest of the child. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection is recommending, that the child be entrusted to the specific confidential foster home of the paternal grandmother, Ms.

C, with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of six (6) months, and that measures be applied in order to correct the situation, as appears from the Court record; [ 5 ] The father, Mr. B was not present, as he was incarcerated. His attorney had asked for an «ordre d'amener», but this order was

not executed. As Me Brunet declared that he was mandated by his client to represent him, and with the consent of all parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of Mr. B, as appears from the Court record. Me Brunet made no admissions to the allegations of the procedure, but declared that his client was in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] The mother, while informed of the hearing was not present.

With the consent of all parties, the Court proceeded in her absence, as appears from the Court record. [ 7 ] The attorney mandated to represented the child made no admissions and declared to be in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection in the best interest of the child, as appears in the Court record. [ 8 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the Director of Youth Protection filed the following document: D-1: Court Report signed by [social worker 1], dated April 20 th , 2010. [ 9 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 10 ] The Court finds from the evidence that the situation of the parents of X (4 years old) remains essentially unchanged.

They both continue to struggle with substance abuse and chronic instability. [ 11 ] The child and his younger sister continue to be cared for by their paternal grandparents, Mrs. C and Mr. D. X is reported to be healthy, well cared for and developing well. The orientation recommended for the child and his sister is to remain in the care of their grandparents. Adoption proceedings are being implemented. [ 12 ] Mrs. C and Mr. D were forced to move because of the father's harassing and ongoing demands.

They wish their address to remain unknown to the father. [ 13 ] Both parents have visiting privileges, but do not avail themselves of them. [ 14 ] Therefore, having received the admissions of the parties, taken into consideration the reports submitted, the Court concludes that the allegations have been proven to it satisfaction and permit the measures to be applied. [ 15 ] CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X continue to be in danger within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act. [ 18 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 19 ] ORDERS that X remain entrusted to the specific confidential foster home of the paternal grandmother, Ms. C, for a period of six (6) months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the child and the mother and Mr. B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and include supervision by the Director or a third party approved by the Director; [ 21 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority and ORDERS that Ms.

C be authorized to sign all needed consents pertaining to the child's needs; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B refrain from being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while in the presence of the child; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share pertinent and necessary information with any of the services providers working with the family, including Mr.

B's probation officer; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and the family for a period of six (6) months; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of A who shall see that these measures are carried out, and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. SIGNED AT CITY A __________________________________ MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant M e Michel Leclerc Attorney for the child M e Richard Brunet Attorney for Mr. B, party Judgment rendered orally on April 27 th , 2010. ML/mr