2019 QCCQ 16139, 2019 QCCQ 16139

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910412 2019 QCCQ 16139 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002263-199 DATE: April 15, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 7, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [...] Interested Party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the 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 Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) ii. and (b) (2) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures because of the possible reintegration. She disagrees to the withdrawal of the parental authority. [ 3 ] Mr. B, the biological father, is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. He asks to be declared as an interested party. The mother agrees with this request. The DYP also agrees as the worker had the chance to see the declaration at the civil status which mentions Mr.

B as the father. [ 4 ] Considering the interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court declares Mr. B “interest party” under

section 81 YPA. [ 5 ] Mr. B admits some of the allegations, and he also agrees with the measures because of the possible reintegration. He also disagrees to the withdrawal of the parental authority. [ 6 ] X, who is 11 months old, is absent, but represented by Me Jennis. The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in the best interest of the child. Facts [ 7 ] The evidence shows that the child is still not registered at the Civil Status. Doing so, he does not have a medical card yet. [ 8 ] X was born prematurely with a very important medical condition.

He has a cyst in his brain and stayed hospitalized in Montreal since his birth. In November 2018, a first emergency surgery was done without the consent of the mother, as she was too intoxicated to give her consent. [ 9 ] The parents have important alcohol consumption issues. Because of past consumption events at the [Centre A], the parents can’t reside in this installation while their son is hospitalized. [ 10 ] X has to receive oxygen and because of his fragile condition, it was impossible for him to travel to City A for Christmas.

The medical installations in City A were not able to offer the appropriate service if an emergency would have occurred, and it was too risky to wait for him to be medevaced with the weather conditions.

[ 11 ] At the beginning of January 2019, a second emergency surgery was performed without the consent of the mother as she was nowhere to be found, despite the facts she was fully aware the medical team was looking for her. [ 12 ] According to the Social Services of City A, the parents are not able to take care of a child with such a medical condition. It’s obvious that the mother loves her son. But she does not seem to realize the seriousness of his condition.

When she is asked to explain her son's condition, she only answers that he has to be brought to the nursing when he is sick. [ 13 ] The maternal great-grandmother is fostering the eldest brother of the child, who is 13 years old. She is 76 years old and she says being scared of the mother. She called the Social Services to make sure the mother won’t come at her place. [ 14 ] The DYP asked the parents to give names of family members in City B who could foster X.

The mother has no names to suggest and the father either. [ 15 ] The mother mentions not being willing to address her alcohol consumption issues, saying being too old for that. She does not want to speak about her conjugal relation nor her relation with her oldest son. [ 16 ] The maternal grandmother was met by the DYP to offer her to take care of X. After thinking about it and considering her mental health issues, she renounced to do it. [ 17 ] In the actual situation, the parents recognized that the best for X is to stay in City B, close to the medical team.

Doing so, a foster family was found for a short period waiting to find a long-term one. [ 18 ] This foster family was found in February, and X arrived at their place on February 25. They live in [region A]. Since his arrival, despite his delays, some improvements regarding his motor development are noted. [ 19 ] The last contact between the child and his parents was in July 2018.

At the end of March 2019, two days before the present hearing, the mother mentioned her interest to have her son back and to change her way of life in consequence. [ 20 ] According to the evolution of his situation, X would be able to live in City A. He will need to meet the neurosurgeon in Montreal once or twice a year and the other specialists could be seen at the same time to avoid too much travelling. Some specialists, as an occupational therapist, doctor, pediatrician and physiotherapist come in City A, but not frequently.

So it would be very important for the mother to understand that there is no way to miss appointment with them. [ 21 ] The DYP worker notes an improvement on the mother’s part. If the mother would have her son with her, she would have a lot of appointments, so the DYP worker gives her appointment to impose her rigour. According to the DYP worker, considering the personal situation of the parents and the fragile situation of X, a period of mobilization of six months will be necessary to be sure that the parents are on the right way.

They will need to demonstrate that they are all-time full of capacity because X needs that his caregivers can react quickly. [ 22 ] The openness of the mother to address her personal issues is very recent, but the DYP worker is ready to work on a reintegration and to prepare the contacts between the child and the parents. Considering the distance, she agrees to organize two or three week-contact in City A. [ 23 ] According to her, the medical staff in City A is equipped to react to an emergency with X even if the weather does not permit to medevac him.

For sure before any access, this aspect will be confirmed with the doctors in Montreal and in City A. [ 24 ] The DYP worker recognized that the mother and the grandmother could do a good team to take care of X, as actually no foster family is available in City A to take care of a child with such specific conditions. [ 25 ] The mother testifies and admits that she was not always available when it was required by the medical staff. But now she is at home and easy to be reached.

She is sorry to react badly with the DYP worker and engages herself to fully collaborate with the Social Services. [ 26 ] She is actually living at her grandmother, but as her uncle is living there and is smoking, she will move at her mother’s place as no one smokes there. Analysis [ 27 ] As admitted by everyone, the situation of the child is in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) ii. and (b)

(2) YPA . [ 28 ] Today, the main concern of the Court is the fragility of the child. His condition improves and his needs of medical care fortunately diminish. That being said, he still needs to be closely monitored and to receive the appropriate stimulation to reduce his developmental delays. [ 29 ] On her side, the mother, who was totally disinvested from her son’s life at the beginning, imposing the surgeon to proceed without any consent, seems to realize the importance to be part of his life.

This mobilization is too recent to start a reintegration, but this mobilization has to be encouraged. [ 30 ] The DYP worker, even if her evaluation report seems to be written for a majority placement, is ready to work for a reintegration process. This will respect the prescription of the YPA which imposes that the intervention made have to put an end to the situation in which the child is in danger. The interest of the child is to be raised by his parents or a least extended family members in his community. Doing so, the responsibility of the DYP is to offer the appropriate services to the parents.

The mother wants to address her issues. She has to be supported in this way.

[ 31 ] Considering the age of the child, the distance between City A and Montreal and considering the past events when the mother was not available to give her consent, the Court will give the attributes of the parental authority to the DYP regarding health consents. The parents will have to be maintained aware of their son's situation. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) ii. and (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a possible gradual reintegration under the care of the parents if the situation allows it; [ 35 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to evaluate a foster family in City A to start the reintegration if needed; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and fully cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet with them upon request; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child receive health care and services required by his condition; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and Mr.

B seek help through Social Services regarding their alcohol and conjugal violence issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, the mother and Mr.

B are facilitated and the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision are determined by Director of Youth Protection; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and granted to the Director of Youth Protection designated by the Court, namely regarding health; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection maintains the parents informed regarding X’s health and other aspects; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 47 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Caroline Daniel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother and Mr. B Date of hearing: April 15, 2019