2014 QCCQ 13966, 2014 QCCQ 13966

Protection de la jeunesse — 142192 2014 QCCQ 13966 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 145-41-000435-138 DATE : June 4, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, j.C.Q.. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner and X Child and A and B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for revision and extension of an order in respect of X (2012-[…]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth protection act. [ 2 ] On June 12, 2013, the Court declares that the security and development of this child are considered to be in danger and orders that the child be entrusted to a foster family until December 31, 2013 with supportive measures and social follow-up for the reasons enunciated in the written judgment which is revealing of a very sad familial situation. [ 3 ] On January 8, 2014, the Court declares that the security and development of the child and the siblings are still considered to be in danger and orders that they be entrusted to their paternal grandmother with supportive measures until June 30, 2014 for the reasons enunciated in the judgment. [ 4 ] Essentially, it is mentioned that the parental capacities are diminished by psycho-logical, emotional and dependency issues.

The psychologist's opinion was "that the risk evaluation associated to neglect and abuse toward the children remains high because registered progress during this evaluation is still very precarious" . [ 5 ] It is also mentioned in the judgment that "it is to be seen if they really want to embark in a serious process of healing and changing, as they presented many relapses and collaboration difficulties over the past years" . The Court also ordered that a long term life project be determined for the child.

[ 6 ] The petition is based on the following assertions and facts:

a) The situation of the parents is still the same: ➢ Both of them continue to use drugs regularly; ➢ Both of them do not attend addiction services or treatment services; ➢ The father still displays violent behaviours toward the mother; ➢ The mother is unstable with regards to her place of stay;

b) The mother recently started to receive services from an external educator;

c) The mother is not able to handle her children more than for short periods of time;

d) The mother is not consistent with her visitations with the children;

e) The visits between the children and the parents are still supervised;

f) Y and Z are with their paternal grandmother since November 11, 2013 and X is with then since August 2013;

g) The paternal grandmother is the person that has been the more stable in the life of the children;

h) The children are enrolled in daycare, so the grandmother can benefit from respites daily;

i) Respite care has been organized as well so the grandmother can recharge her energy and have time for herself;

j) The grandmother is willing to take care of the children until their age of majority, and realises the challenge of doing so;

k) With the services in place, the grandmother is capable of taking care of the children;

l) It is in the best interest of the children to be entrusted to their paternal grandmother until their age of majority. [ 7 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and unrepresented. They admit the situation described at the petition and consent to its conclusions as well as the child's lawyer. [ 8 ] The Court studied the psychosocial report. [ 9 ] Considering the judgment's content of June 12, 2013 and January 8, 2014 and considering the report's content and the position of the parties, the Court grants the petition in the sense of its conclusions. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 10 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act;

[ 11 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family and ORDERS that the foster family be the one of Mrs C, as chosen by the Director of youth protection in the determination of the long term life project for the child; [ 12 ] ORDERS that the visits with the parents be authorized, planned and supervised by the Director of youth protection as long as deemed necessary; [ 13 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to seek professional counselling and addiction services; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the parents notify the Director of youth protection of any address or phone number change as soon as possible; [ 15 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of their parental authority with regard to the authorizations to be given concerning the routine or urgent health services, the social, academic extracurricular activities and to obtain a passport, a social insurance card, a driver's license or any other legal paper that the child need and DELEGATES such authority to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A in concert with the foster family; [ 16 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to X, his family and Mrs C; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until […], 2030 (date of his majority) for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux, for the petitioner Me Réal Grenier, for the child Mrs A, the mother Mr B, the father