2018 QCCQ 11330, 2018 QCCQ 11330

Protection de la jeunesse — 182032 2018 QCCQ 11330 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004804-152 DATE: February 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 2012 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Applicant v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] By a judgment rendered on January 13, 2017, the Court extends for one year, various protective measures in regards to the child X, in reason of a continued situation of neglect. As well as maintaining the child in foster care with additional measures of aid and counsel, the Court structures contacts with her mother, providing supervision by a third party and a minimum frequency of two every three weeks.

As for the father, contacts remain prohibited. [ 2 ] The Court further takes act of the Director’s intention to elaborate a permanency plan for the child. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the extension and revision of the measures for another year, declaring the intention to go forward with a permanency plan allowing her to be stabilized in her foster environment by way of an adoption. [ 4 ] The mother doesn’t contest the continued situation of endangerment.

She wants to maintain regular access with her daughter and disagrees with the project to go forward with a permanency plan. [ 5 ] The Court proceeds in the father’s absence, the evidence establishing his notification of the proceedings as well as his lack of investment as to the child. [ 6 ] The attorney for the child, acting within a legal mandate, pleads in favour of the Director’s position, considering that such corresponds to her young client’s best interests.

Considering that the Director states their intentions as to a permanency plan, she asks that the Court entrust the child to her designated foster family. [ 7 ] Context [ 8 ] X remains in foster care since May 2015, after having known instability and neglect within her family environment. [ 9 ] Since that time, both her parents continue to struggle with numerous issues affecting their capacities to be significantly involved in their daughter’s life. [ 10 ] As for the father, he presents himself on a few occasions to speak to the case worker, verbalizing his intention to seek services for his drug addiction and wanting to stabilize his situation.

Other than these punctual meetings, of which the last dates from May 2017, he is unreachable and fails to cooperate with the intervention. There have been no contacts between X and her father for many years and these are now prohibited by the Court order.

[ 11 ] Although the mother benefits from supervised contacts with her daughter every three weeks, only six contacts occur since the last order, the last being held in May 2017. The mother exhibits attitudes and behaviours which contribute to a loyalty conflict, questioning her daughter about where she wants to live. Following the visits, X exhibits various reactions (enuresis, opposition, sadness). [ 12 ] X shows no negative reactions after the contacts with her mother cease. In point of fact, her behaviours progressively improve. She is less oppositional, stops having outbursts and is more autonomous.

She develops a secure attachment with her foster family, whom she now designates as her parents. She expresses her wish to remain in their care “ forever ”. [ 13 ] X continues to visit her maternal grandmother once a month, with whom she maintains a significant and healthy relationship. The grandmother requests longer visits and information as to X are left unanswered as the mother is unavailable to authorize such. [ 14 ] As of May 2017, the mother’s personal challenges intensify.

Homeless and heavily involved in drugs, she remains uninvolved in the follow-up and seeks no contacts with her daughter. [ 15 ] In September 2017, a life plan committee is held concluding with a recommendation that X be adopted by her current foster family. [ 16 ] At the same period, the mother contacts the caseworker to request a resumption of her visits with her children (X and two siblings). She doesn’t assume responsibility for the Director’s involvement, insisting that they stole her child.

Although she states being willing to undertake steps to receive services, she doesn’t follow through afterwards and her lack of involvement continues. [ 17 ] The mother testifies at the hearing. She explains her personal situation and her wish to remain an active

part in her child’s life. She offers multiple reasons justifying her mistrust of the caseworkers, which she states is the basis of her uncooperativeness. She doesn’t show understanding of the situation of endangerment nor of her

part in such, relegating this to others. [ 18 ] Analysis and decision [ 19 ] As was the case in the last judgment, the Court concludes to the expiration of the maximum delays of placement provided under

article 91 of the Youth Protection Act . Concurrently, the security or the development of the child are still in danger and a return with her parents is not possible in a reasonable delay. [ 20 ] The mother fails to establish a situation justifying that the Court suspend the process of stabilizing the child on a permanent basis and furthermore, such is in the child’s best interests. [ 21 ] X can no longer wait for her parents to be available and able to be a significant part of her life.

The evidence demonstrates that they are both still engaged in lifestyles which do not permit the rehabilitation of their parental capacities. [ 22 ] Re-engaging contacts between X and her mother at this juncture would be detrimental to her acquired equilibrium and this, without there being any convincing evidence that the mother is now, in fact, able to actively engage herself on a durable basis.

Such has already been determined as to the father. [ 23 ] For these reasons, the Court prohibits the contacts between and X and both her parents. [ 24 ] X’s situation meets all criteria for the establishment of a permanency plan and although the Director seeks another short term order, such is to undertake proceedings towards the establishment of such. [ 25 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court determines that this process corresponds to the child’s best interest and that it is necessary to render an order which aims at ensuring the continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age.

For these reasons, the Court confirms that the child will remain in her present foster environment. [ 26 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 29 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on January 13, 2017; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her current foster family as being that chosen by the Director of Youth Protection of A; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of this foster family remain confidential with respect to the father; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her maternal grandmother be following agreement between the parties; [ 33 ] FORBIDS any contacts between the child and her paternal extended family; [ 34 ] FORBIDS the contacts between the child and her parents, except for those which answer therapeutic needs for the child; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents reports 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 of the child is in danger; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family;

[ 38 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign the authorizations required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport, if it is impossible for the Director to reach the parents in a reasonable delay; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE for one year; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Pascale Boucher Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Annie Girard Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 2, 2018