2023 QCCQ 8839, 2023 QCCQ 8839

Protection de la jeunesse — 234780 2023 QCCQ 8839 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-006623-212 DATE: June 2, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2021 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant -and- A B Parents -and- C Grandmother-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Articles 95 (1) & (2) 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] On September 24, 2021, the Court renders a protection order as concerns the child, relating to a serious risk of neglect stemming from her parent’s personal difficulties.

Within this nine-month order, the Court entrusts the child to her paternal grandmother with supervised contacts with her parents following mutual agreement as concerns the terms and frequency. [ 2 ] Alleging that the paternal grandmother is unable to ensure the child’s needs on a consistent basis, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the revision and extension of this judgment, seeking that the Court entrust the child to a foster family amid other protective measures for 6 months. [ 3 ] As regards the contacts between the child and her parents, the Director seeks additional structure in order to ensure their beneficial nature. [ 4 ] The parents as well as the paternal grandmother, granted intervenor status, contest the Director’s proposed orientation, requesting that the Court maintain the child in her environment until her majority.

The attorney for the child, acting under a legal mandate, shares this position. [ 5 ] The parents also seek unsupervised contacts with their daughter and in default of such, that the grandmother supervise. [ 6 ] The questions at issue are the following: • Is it in the child’s interest to remain with her paternal grandmother? • Considering that the parties no longer agree to a

schedule of contacts between the child and her parents, what should be put in place to respect her best interests and the objectives of the law ? [ 7 ] After its analysis, the Court determines that the child be transferred into a foster family in view of her eventual stabilization on a permanent basis. As regards her contacts with her parents, these must be restructured in order to ensure a healthy bond. Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Is it in the child’s interest to remain with her paternal grandmother? [ 9 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court decides that such is not the case.

[ 10 ] The preliminary conditions justifying a permanency plan are in place, as are expired the maximum delays of placement and there is no expectation of the parents being able to assume their child’s care in the short term. As such, the Court must assume a long- term vision of the child’s interests and needs. [ 11 ] Since her birth, the child’s care was prioritized in her grandmother’s environment, considering their relationship.

The child now is anchored with her grandmother, and they share a close bond. [ 12 ] Notwithstanding, at this junction it is necessary to evaluate whether this environment is able to respond to her needs on a long- term basis and this, in view of the overall evidence which demonstrates a multitude of issues which are ongoing and in fact, demonstrate serious risk of neglect. [ 13 ] The Court resumes some of the probative facts justifying this conclusion. [ 14 ] The overall evidence from the various professionals having offered services to the grandmother is to the effect that she consistently doesn’t integrate the advice offered in relation to the child’s nutritional and stimulation needs. [ 15 ] The apartment is regularly encumbered, leaving little space for the child to play.

The state of the living quarters varies in function of the grandmother’s state. [ 16 ] The grandmother has difficulties following up on meetings and appointments for the child. Her cooperation is observed to be mostly superficial, with the application of the recommendations having to be often repeated. [ 17 ] Although not a determinant factor, the Court also considers the grandmother’s health situation as an additional impediment to her assuming the long-term care of the child. [ 18 ] The grandmother suffers from various chronic maladies (diabetes, hypertension).

As a result of cancer treatments, she has a renal insufficiency which requires that she receive dialysis three times a week for four hours, in a hospital setting. After these treatments, she shows fatigue which diminishes her ability to respond to the child’s needs. [ 19 ] The grandmother has the support of her daughter and a family friend, who are instrumental in helping with the child’s needs.

Their help, offered on an almost daily basis, only further underlines the fragility of the milieu as the evidence demonstrates that they maintain a primary role in caregiving. [ 20 ] The grandmother’s health issues have resulted in a rapid degeneration of the child’s living conditions and event to the child being entrusted to third parties, without the Director being advised of such. [ 21 ] In October 2022, the child is removed from her grandmother’s care on an emergency basis when the caseworker is unable to verify the child’s situation after she learns that the grandmother is sick.

As the grandmother doesn’t respond to calls and texts, a police intervention becomes necessary to enter the home. [ 22 ] The child is in the care of a third party and is seen to be lethargic. The living area is unkept. Although the child is eventually returned to the grandmother, this situation underlines the lack of effective collaboration and of the fragility of her judgment. [ 23 ] Since the child has been in her grandmother’s care, the Director and other services have consistently observed the many challenges in play, situation which remains unresolved.

Recommendations involving proper care, nutrition and medical services are repeatedly made, but not consistently applied, the grandmother remaining insistent on her way of doing things. [ 24 ] Over time, the collaboration with the Director wanes which is further exacerbated by their position seeking the child’s placement. It is difficult to get in contact with her as she frequently does not answer her phone or return calls and can cancel meetings. [ 25 ] At the time of the final hearing, the child is progressively showing developmental issues. She presents with a mild motor delay, as she walked at only 18 months.

She also has a language delay, having a limited vocabulary and not forming sentences. Evaluations are ongoing. [ 26 ] The Court realizes that there may be genetic issues at play considering that both her parents are known for delays and intellectual disability.

Notwithstanding, the child’s needs for stimulation are important and consistently not being attended to, resulting in the delays being observed. [ 27 ] Overall, the evidence convinces the Court that the grandmother struggles with her role as the primary caregiver of the child, a situation which remains ongoing despite the breadth of services offered. [ 28 ] As the child’s interests command that she benefit from an environment able to offer her a constant and adapted response to her many needs, it is necessary that she transfer to a foster family in view of an eventual permanency plan. [ 29 ] Such being the case, her relationship with her grandmother must be preserved.

After a short transitional period to allow that the child adapt to her new foster family, the Court therefore orders regular weekend contacts. [ 30 ] Considering that the parties no longer agree to a

schedule of contacts between the child and her parents, what should be put in place to respect her best interests and the objectives of the law? [ 31 ] The parents offer little in the way of cooperation or participation in the follow-up. [ 32 ] Initially, the paternal grandmother receives the parents at her home for supervised visits, but this changes when she refuses to continue this role because of conflicts with her son.

[ 33 ] As the parents refuse to participate in the follow-up or exchange with the worker as to other solutions, no physical contacts occur as of February 2022. [ 34 ] Since that time, the father initiates almost daily visio conference calls with his daughter. These are usually short and include computer games played together. The mother’s participation is uncertain, as the evidence shows that she usually remains silently in the background. [ 35 ] Although the child is observed to appreciate these contacts, the Court questions their real benefit for the child.

Relegated to seeing her parents through a screen for a very short period, there is little in place to promote a secure bond. [ 36 ] The child’s interests are to firstly ensure that the contacts are conducive to maintaining a positive bond. It is therefore now necessary to evaluate the capacity of the child and of her parents to evolve the contacts to a more meaningful level.

For this to occur, the parent’s active participation in this process and the follow-up are essential, as had been previously ordered. [ 37 ] The Court is sensitive to the parent’s issues and the Director must obviously adapt their approaches consequently.

This being stated, the parent’s unjustified refusal to cooperate in the protective measures, and work towards ensuring positive and worthwhile contacts, cannot continue, especially in view of the new paradigm in place. [ 38 ] The supervision by the Director, at least for an initial observation period, is important to better understand the relationship between the child and her parents and therefore adapt the access. The conclusions reflect this imperative.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the application; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 41 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on September 24, 2021; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by Director of Youth Protection A; [ 43 ] TAKES ACT that the integration will occur today and that a contact will be scheduled this weekend between the child and her paternal grandmother; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and this following three initial meetings between the parents and the caseworkers within a six-week period of the first meeting.

In the absence of an agreement, that they take place at the Director’s office; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the contacts will be conditional to the parents offering cooperation and participation with the follow-up; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her paternal grandmother be following agreement between the parties.

In default of an agreement, as of the July 29, 2023 access will minimally be scheduled every second weekend from Saturday morning to Sunday evening; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development are in danger; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child as well as her family; [ 50 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to exchange with the professionals involved in the child’s life; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the child integrate daycare in a reasonable delay; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 53 ] THE WHOLE for six months. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the parents Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child

Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the grandmother Dates of hearing: September 19, 2022, May 25, May 26 and June 2, 2023 (judgment)