2010 QCCQ 17853, 2010 QCCQ 17853

Protection de la jeunesse — 105174 2010 QCCQ 17853 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth division” N o : 635-41-000207-073 DATE: December 17, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E. GRIMARD, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ SOCIAL WORKER 1 , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection [of Youth Center A], working in town A.

Applican t -and- X , residing and domiciled town B, Quebec, district A Child -and- A , residing and domiciled town B, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled town C, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sections 95 & 75 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c. P.-34.1 ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The director of youth protection is requesting from the Court to review a decision rendered on March 30, 2010 by the Honourable Denyse Leduc, JCQ, in the situation of X, born […], 2007.

The Court entrusted the child to foster care for a period of six months with progressive reintegration with her mother and ordered different measures of help for the family’s members for a period of one year. The applicant now recommends extending most of these measures for the same periods. [ 2 ] Youth Protection has been involved with this family since September 7, 2007, only three months after the child’s birth. On February 19, 2008, the Court entrusted the child to her father, as the mother was arrested due to a violent fight with her sister. The father took good care of his daughter until mid-July 2008.

As the situation overwhelmed him, he was granted a three weeks respite. In August 2008, he decided he would no longer care for the child. [ 3 ] On May 11, 2008, the mother was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the death of a person. She was sentenced on January 15, 2009 to 36 months of detention. On September 30, 2008, the Court entrusted the child to foster care for a period of six months, and, on March 24, 2009, the Court ordered a placement of one year.

On March 30, 2010, the Court entrusted the child to foster care for a period of six months with progressive reintegration with her mother. [ 4 ] Mary had been staying in the same foster family town D and the petitioner was planning her return town B with her mother on May 15, 2010. In her judgment of March 30, 2010, the Honourable Denyse Leduc had recommended that the uncle C be evaluated as a foster parent.

He had shown some interest in fostering the child but changed his mind. [ 5 ] The mother was allowed to go back to her community on May 15, 2010, but unfortunately, she breached her conditions; she smoked marijuana. She stayed detained until October 29, 2010. She always showed her interest in seeing her daughter but as she was detained, it was impossible to organize visits between them. Arrangements were made so that the mother could contact her daughter once a week.

Visits were organized between that father and the child but he never presented himself. [ 6 ] The mother’s situation is evolving positively even though she had a relapse in May 2010. She is back in her community and living at her uncle C’s place. She got a house two weeks ago and upon arriving town B she contacted social services, when to AA meetings and counselling. In the past, she worked at [Company A], was a substitute teacher and she is now looking for a job. She has the capacity to take care of her child if she goes on changing her lifestyle.

She will need great support to help her deal with family of the person whom she accidentally killed; getting back in touch with peers that consume and stay sober. [ 7 ] She is well aware that considering the time her child was placed in foster care, time is running out and that it is her last chance.

[ 8 ] Considering the admissions of the parties, the testimonies and the reports filed, the Court is convinced that the recommendations are in the best interest of the child and that they respect her rights.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: GRANTS the petition; REVISES the decision rendered on March 30, 2010; MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […], 2007, are still compromised; ENTRUSTS the child to foster care for a period of six months with a progressive reintegration with her mother if the situation allows it; ORDERS • that a person working for an institution or body provide help, counsel or assistance to the child and the child’s family, • that regular visits between the child and her mother take place, • that the contacts between the child and her father be supervised by the DYP in regard of the frequency and modalities, • the mother to seek counselling for her past issues and alcohol problems, • that the child and the child’s family take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the tribunal and that they cooperate with the youth protection workers; ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director who shall see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer. __________________________________ Marc E. Grimard, JQC M e Wolfgang Mercier-Giguère Counsel for the applicant M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Counsel for the child M e Denis Trottier Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: November 9, 2010