2018 QCCQ 14295, 2018 QCCQ 14295

Protection de la jeunesse — 184778 2018 QCCQ 14295 JB5047 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 460-41-001681-170 DATE June 20, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at [...]; Applicant -and- A , residing and domiciled at an unknown address -and- FATHER DECEASED Children’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the security and development of X be declared still in danger. [ 2 ] Today, the Director is recommending that X be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. B and Mr. C, that the contacts with his mother be upon agreement with the Director, to withdraw the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority to the mother and entrust them to the Director, with a social follow up, the whole until X’s age of majority. [ 3 ] The mother is absent.

She would be currently living in Town A, [Country A]. The Director tried to serve her through messenger but the envelope came back unclaimed. Nonetheless, she was in contact with the Director and knows about the recommendations today. She mentioned her agreement to them at the Orientation Table held on May 4 th 2018.

[ 4 ] The Court proceeds in her absence. [ 5 ] The father is deceased. [ 6 ] The child’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence is in agreement with the measures. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the security and development of the youth still in danger? In the affirmative, do the recommended measures answer the needs of the youth and are they in his best interest?

Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The Court is requested to revise the decision rendered on July 4 th 2017 by the Honourable Julie Beauchesne, by which she entrusted X to a foster home, authorizing contacts with his father and authorizing a return to his home as soon as the situation allowed. This order was for a period of one year. [ 9 ] Since the last Court order, dramatic events took place. [ 10 ] During the first 5 months, X continued to visit his father on a regular basis at his home, every other weekend.

The father kept involved in X’s life, ensuring regularly of how he was doing and attending medical appointments. [ 11 ] In January 2018, he separated from his spouse. [ 12 ] On January 22 nd , 2018, the father presented himself at the Director’s office with a letter stating that he wished to delegate his parental authority to his ex-spouse should something happen to him. [ 13 ] During the meeting with the delegate, it is apparent that the father’s psychological state had deteriorated and that he was fragile. [ 14 ] He had suicidal ideations but no actual plan.

In the past he had a plan to commit suicide in his car with his son but never actualized this plan. [ 15 ] Nonetheless, protective measures were put in place around X. [ 16 ] During the following week the Director was unable to reach the father. [ 17 ] On February 1 st , during a fortuitous meeting with the father’s spouse, the delegate learns that the father is deceased. He was found lifeless in his car in [Province A]. She was informed on January 27 th , 2018.

She had not contacted the delegate nor the foster home where X is living. [ 18 ] On February 14 th , the Director seized the Court to obtain a provisional order regrading parental authority since the mother had not seen X in 10 years and was not reachable at the time. [ 19 ] It was mid-march by the time X was told of his father’s death. He reacted calmly but was visibly affected by the news. He then started his grieving process, exhibiting at first some aggressive behaviour. [ 20 ] The foster home received help to deal with this new behaviours. [ 21 ] The father’s spouse, Mrs.

D was met to inquire about her intentions towards X. Although she considers him as her son, she is not willing to care for him on a regular and permanent basis. [ 22 ] She mentioned her wish to maintain visits with him. A first contact was then organised and was positive.

The Director recommends that they continue every other weekend as it was with the father. [ 23 ] In April 2018, the Director managed to contact the mother and informed her of the father’s death and of her son’s situation. [ 24 ] She was not aware of his different diagnosis and of his special needs as she had not kept informed of her son during so many years.

She says she was too afraid of the father’s violent behaviour to keep in touch. [ 25 ] They discussed having regular contacts through Facetime once a week. [ 26 ] On April 13 th , 2018 a physical contact was arranged and X got to see his mother for a very short visit. [ 27 ] The mother went back to Town A. She is now an American citizen and is married. She is interested in being more involved in X’s life. [ 28 ] At this point in time, it is quite uncertain to predict the mother’s involvement in X’s life.

She has much to catch up with. [ 29 ] X is a teenager who has great special needs which are met in his new foster home. He will be continuing dealing with his father’s death. He was the most significative parental figure he ever knew. [ 30 ] As for the motive of compromising, the last Court order concluded to educational negligence on the part of the father. [ 31 ] This motive must now be revised. Considering the new facts demonstrated by the Director, the courts retains the motive of

abandonment. [ 32 ] As for the measures, after considering the Director’s report and the delegate’s testimony, the Court considers that the recommended measures answer the youth’s needs and respects his rights. [ 33 ] The present judgement completes and confirms each and every observations that were made on the bench in presence of the parties.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X is in danger for the following motive: − 38a): abandonment; REVISES the Court order rendered on July 4, 2017 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the youth X to a foster family, namely to Mrs. B and Mr.

C; ORDERS that the contacts between X and his mother be upon agreement with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by his situation; WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of her parental authority and entrust such exercise to the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES contacts between X and Mrs. D, upon agreement with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and his family until his majority, [...], 2020;.

ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e René Sévigny Counsel for the children Date of written judgment : August 7, 2018 Exhibits deposited : D-5