2020 QCCQ 14417, 2020 QCCQ 14417

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010123 2020 QCCQ 14417 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000378-184 DATE: December 11, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and X (Born on [...], 2017) Child and A Mother and B Father _____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on December 11, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits an application to extend a judgment rendered on June 18, 2020, by the undersigned ordering the placement of the child in a foster home for a period of six months. The Director seeks an extension for a period of six months as written in the revision report.

However, when the Social Worker testified, she agreed that a three-month-period will be sufficient. [ 3 ] This child has been placed since May 2018 that is to say that the time limit prescribed by the law is exceeded. [ 4 ] However, no life plan has been established by the Director of Youth Protection since the eighteen-month maximum period of placement has been reached. [ 5 ] Despite the judgment ordering the placement of the child, the Director of Youth Protection allowed him to live at [Center A] with his mother on August 24, 2020.

On August 26, 2020, the Director of Youth Protection presented an application for provisional measures asking the Court to entrust X to the care of his mother which was denied by the Court. From that date, the child should have been back in a foster home. However, the child only came back in Town A three weeks later, on September 16, 2020. No explanations were given except that the Director of Youth Protection was searching for someone to bring back the child. The mother left [Center A] and brought the child back to Town A.

He was left to his mother in order to quarantine. [ 6 ] At the beginning of October 2020, the child was placed in the first foster family. It lasted two weeks. The child had to be moved to a second foster family where he stayed a little less than two weeks. This has continued on until he was placed in his fifth foster family within a two-month-period. [ 7 ] On top of that, the child was left with his mother for a part of the month of November until she left to give birth in Town B.

In fact, the foster family picks him up in the morning to bring him at the day care, and then X is brought back to his mother’s place after leaving day care. The situation has been going on since November 27, 2020, until the day of the hearing. So, if the child is not at the day care he is with his mother. [ 8 ] The Social Worker states that an extension of the placement is necessary in order to see if the mother will remain sober, which

she has been since May 2020, when she learned that she was pregnant. [ 9 ] The placement of the child has to be necessary. In fact the child has been, since last August, most of the time with his mother despite a clear judgment ordering his placement. The Director of Youth Protection does not have the choice to execute a judgment rendered by the Court. He cannot choose which conclusions he is going to apply and which conclusions he will not.

It is a clear disregard towards the authority of the Court. [ 10 ] The discourse of the professionals involved in the situation and representing the Director of Youth Protection has to be concurrent and coherent. Here, a co-worker communicated another position about the situation of the mother saying that they were planning to return the child. These mixed messages should not exist. The Director of Youth Protection should have one position and one person speaking with the parent. [ 11 ] The mother states that she is no longer in a relationship with the father. However, he is also the father of her newborn son.

The Court is not sure that this separation is a permanent one. As the father still drinks, the mother has to understand that if she goes back with him she will not only put X at risk, but also the newborn. [ 12 ] For the time being, the mother collaborates well, does not drink and is able to care for the newborn and X as he has been living with her almost all the time since August 2020. [ 13 ] The many foster families the child has known within a two-month-period are enough to destabilize the child. Clearly he reacted and wanted to be back with his mother.

We have to keep in mind that he was with her from August to October before being placed. [ 14 ] The Court is almost facing a “fait accompli”. The Director of Youth Protection has no life plan for the child and, for the time being, the mother has changed her lifestyle and the preponderant evidence is aimed at the reintegration of the child with his mother. An intensive follow-up should be put in place with her in order to ensure the success of this reintegration. If the mother shows signs of tiredness, respite can be offered to her in order to avoid any future placement of X.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS partially the application; [ 16 ] REVIEWS AND EXTENDS the last Court order; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS that the security and the development of X, born on [...], 2017, are still endangered ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and the mother for a period of one year and for the first months, that aid be intensive ; [ 20 ] ORDERS the mother to report herself to the Director of Youth Protection at least once every two weeks and inform the Social Worker of any change in her situation; [ 21 ] TAKES NOTICE of the declaration of the mother that she is not a couple anymore with Mr.

B and that she intends to continue to live in Town A.

In the event that she goes back to Town C to reunite with the father, the Director of Youth Protection should come back to Court. [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to seek help about her alcohol consumption issues and to follow the recommendations of the professionals and this, as soon as possible ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that any access right between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency, the supervision, and the presence of a third party if needed; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to be and remain sober when in presence of the child; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to be and remain sober when in presence of the child; [ 26 ] ORDERS that X attend day care on a full-time basis; [ 27 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate to the execution of the Court Orders if requested to do so by the Director of the Youth Protection or one of his representatives ; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q .

Mtre. Adélia Ferreira Ferreira Lempicka attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre Communautaire Juridique A Attorney for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier, Avocat, Town D Attorney for the mother Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub Avocats Inc Attorney for the father Date of hearing: December 11, 2020