2012 QCCQ 13826, 2012 QCCQ 13826

Protection de la jeunesse — 12499 2012 QCCQ 13826 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000393-105 DATE: February 9, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A. working in City A Applicant -and- X , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The petitioner, Mr [Social Worker 1], authorized by the Director of Youth Protection asks for the review and extension of an order under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning the child X , born on […], 2010. More specifically the petitioner is seeking a placement for the child until his majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child is represented by his lawyer. The mother and the father are both present, although only the father is represented by a lawyer. [ 3 ] The application is challenged by both parents. THE FACTS [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved in the parents' lives since 2004 and accordingly in the child's life since his birth. In fact, X was first entrusted to a foster family when he was barely 10 days old.

The child's four siblings are subject to Court orders under the Youth Protection Act . They are all entrusted to foster family's until they reach majority. [ 5 ] On December 14, 2010, Leduc J. declared that the security and development of the child was endangered due to the parents chronic problems with alcohol and violence. The child was placed in foster care for a period of six months. [ 6 ] On June 7, 2011, C . extended the placement of the child for a period of six months. He maintained that the security and development of the child remained in danger due to the parents' continuous struggle with alcohol.

Furthermore, C . noted that the parents had no fixed address, staying randomly at one place then another. Many recommendations were made to the parents in order to remind them of the urgency to address their personal issues in order to operate meaningful improvements in their lives. [ 7 ] The following facts are admitted or proven on a balance of probabilities. [ 8 ] Since the last Court order, the mother didn't take advantage of the given time to seek counselling for her addiction to alcohol. She separated from the father after his last arrest and states she now has a stable address since mid December 2011.

She was arrested once again in November 2011, when intoxicated and was unlawfully found in a dwelling house. To this, the mother replies that her presence in the said dwelling was lawful. [ 9 ] The mother did not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, meeting with a social worker on only one occasion.

Afterwards, she failed to follow through on the discussed subject matters. Moreover, she showed little interest to have supervised contacts with X . The mother's situation as described in the previous judgments remains unchanged. [ 10 ] As for the father, he spent most of the last six months in jail. After his release, he completed a six-week treatment program at the A Centre for his alcohol addiction. He engaged in a new relationship with another woman with whom he is now living in City B since mid December.

In addition, the father and his girlfriend are working at [Company A] on a cycle of 14 days of work followed by as many days off. [ 11 ] Although he has no concrete plan as to how he could care for his son with such a working schedule, he maintains that some sort of arrangement could be made, possibly with the mother who can, according to him, also care for the child. When questioned on his parental skills and his knowledge of a baby's needs, the father answers he would do like any other parent.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that the father met his son for the first time on the morning of the hearing leading to the present judgment. [ 12 ] After the father's stay at the A Centre, the counsellor who drafted the treatment

summary report wrote the following: […] B said that he wants to go to work right after he finishes treatment and this is in a mine. B figures that if he stays busy he won't drink or use drugs. B also needs to work on his past relationship with the mother of his kids. He is to go to court early Jan 2012 and this seems to be an area of irritation for him as he wants custody of his youngest child. B says that he will stay sober if he has his son with him.

This comment is of concern to me as B has not mentioned much in the area of AA meetings and getting a sponsor. […] [ 13 ] Despite the mother's regular consumption of alcohol during her pregnancy, X shows, as of yet, no symptoms of foetal alcohol syndrome. He is progressing well in his foster family and has developed a significant bond with his foster parents with whom he has been living for nearly all his life. [ 14 ] In the present context, it is obvious that the security and development of X are still endangered.

Notwithstanding the father's progress in his own regard, the evidence shows there are still many concerns regarding his capacity to provide a safe and secure environment for his son. APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 15 ] As previously mentioned, the Director of Youth Protection asks for the placements of X until his majority. The parents are opposed to this measure. The mother has no solution to suggest other than stating she is able to care for her son. As for the father, he proposes that his son remains in foster care for three or four months at which time he will be ready to care for him. [ 16 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act limits the duration of a foster care measure to 12 months for children under two years of age. According to the law, at the end of this period the Court must render an order aimed at ensuring the continuous care, stable relationships and living conditions of the child. [ 17 ] This

section aims to help the parents develop and exercise their parental capacities within a given period after which attempt the children are entitled to stable living conditions. [ 18 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act also provides that the Court may disregard the maximum 12 months foster care period if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family on the short term, if the interest of the child requires it, or for other serious reasons. [ 19 ] From the case law developed on that matter, emerges two essential conditions that must be met before the Court can render a decision aimed at providing continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions to the child on a permanent basis: 1) The prospect of the child's return with his family is unrealistic. 2) The existence of a life project by which the child is able to adapt and bond with his new family. [1] [ 20 ] In order to satisfy to the second condition, the Court must verify the true long-term commitment of the surrogate family towards the child as well as the level of attachment of the child to his new family. [ 21 ] Moreover, in order to avoid the shunting around of the child from one foster family to another, the Court must have the means to confirm and order that the child be entrusted to a specific foster family most likely to meet all of his needs.

This is in keeping with the objective of continuity and stability set forth by the Youth Protection Act and the

interpretation given by the Courts. [2] [ 22 ] In the case at bar, the evidence shows that X has been in foster care for more than 14 months. He has been in the same foster family for almost his whole life. The foster mother D and her partner Mr E are capable, interested and available to care for X until his majority. X has established solid links with his foster parents. [ 23 ] Although the father is well intentioned, the Court cannot isolate two months of sobriety from the rest of his social history. The father's recent sobriety has to be viewed in a wider context.

To that effect, F best summarized the interest of a child in a context of cyclic alcohol consumption by the parents: For the Court, a sobriety period is at the most, a sign of improvement, and can never be considered as a safeguard against the risk of danger for the children, unless it can be maintained for a significant period of time and unless it is linked to other services such as support, therapy and guidance.

Excessive and cyclic alcohol consumption has deeper roots than availability of alcohol and in that sense, it can only be considered as a symptom of inner discomfort in relation with past history of the protagonist. If the Court sees necessary to specify the above, it is because the analysis of the child’s interest to reintegrate his family is often based on the sobriety of the parents over a short period of time and bypasses the need of the child to receive continuous care in a stable

environment. [3] [ 24 ] Moreover, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the father doesn't even know his son. To this day, he has no implication in B's life. There is absolutely no link between the father and his son. [ 25 ] The Court recognizes that the father is progressing as to his struggle with alcohol. However, the evidence reveals that his personal situation remains precarious as stated by the Isuarsivik counsellor. As of now, the father's expectation of being able to care for X is unrealistic. The father is still in need of services for his alcohol abuse and parental skills. He tends to minimize his needs in these regards. Furthermore, his new living arrangements and his work

schedule do not permit the integration of the child in his girlfriend's home. Lastly, his positive view of the mother's parental capacities is worrisome considering she has done nothing to improve her personal situation. [ 26 ] The evidence convinces the Court that it is in the best interest of X , who clearly identifies to his foster parents as his mother and father, to continue to live in this environment.

He has established solid bonds in that environment and at the same time, there is no such bond with his biological father. [ 27 ] Consequently, the need of consistent, structured, stable, secured and loving environment must be answered by the present decision and cannot be postponed to await possibilities that are not supported by the evidence.

In that sense, X can no longer wait for significant changes in his parents' lives. [ 28 ] Considering the previous placements, the fact that the child cannot live with either parent and the above-mentioned evidence concerning the foster family, the Court is convinced it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in a foster home until his majority. [ 29 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 31 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X , born on […], 2010, remain endangered; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family until he reaches his majority; [ 33 ] ORDERS the placement of X with the foster family of D and E; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health services required by his state; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to the terms and conditions; [ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Mathieu Brassard Legal Aid A Lawyer for the child M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: January 31, 2012