2012 QCCQ 9645, 2012 QCCQ 9645

Protection de la jeunesse — 121384 2012 QCCQ 9645 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001192-0925 DATE: June 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1999 [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the a Health Centre A working in town A Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled in town A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, unknown address in town B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on November 8, 2011, concerning X, born on […], 1999. [ 2 ] The whereabouts of the father are unknown and service was done trough a Montreal newspaper. The mother is present, detained and represented. [ 3 ] The child is present and represented.

II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 4 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue, considering the allegations admitted by the mother and the child and their consent to the measures recommended. III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 5 ] The evidence tendered consists of the admissions made by the mother and her son. Furthermore, must be added the testimony of the community worker and the review report filed.

[ 6 ] Essentially, the Director is demanding an extension of the decision rendered on November 8, 2011, not a review. Indeed, it becomes more evident when one reads the allegations in support of the application. The situation of the child is stable and he is progressing towards a reintegration with his foster parents.

The Director wants to extend his stay in the rehabilitation centre, considering that the child is not ready, at this point in time, to live in a family. [ 7 ] The review report recommends a foster care in a specialized foster family and the lawyer pleads for a rehabilitation centre and the Court does not understand the link between the two. [ 8 ] For the benefit of the child in particular, it is quite important that lawyers representing clients in a youth protection case, know exactly the appropriate legal terminology in order to fulfil their mandate adequately. [ 9 ] For the Court, the Director is demanding that the child be fostered in an intermediate resource, not a specialized foster family.

This intermediate resource is, for the purpose of the Youth Protection Act only, considered as a rehabilitation centre. That was the answer the Court was waiting for, when the question was asked to the lawyer of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ]

Section 302 of An Act Respecting Health Services And Social Services R.S.Q.

chapter S-4.2, states: 302. An intermediate resource is a resource that is operated by a natural person as a self-employed worker or by a legal person or a partnership and is recognised by an agency for the purpose of participating in the maintenance of users otherwise registered for a public institution's services in the community or in their integration into the community by providing them with a living environment suited to their needs, together with the support or assistance services required by their condition.

The immovable or dwelling premises in which the services of an intermediate resource are provided is not deemed to be a facility maintained by the public institution to which the resource is attached, except for the purposes of the Youth Protection Act (chapter P-34.1 ), in which case it is considered to be a place where foster care is provided by an institution operating a rehabilitation centre. (Underling by the Court) [ 11 ] The mother as stated previously, is in agreement with the main measure recommended and is presently serving a detention term that should end in 2013.

They speak to each other by telephone, according to the review report. [ 12 ] Considering the situation and the decision ordering the foster care of the child until he reaches the age of majority, rendered on April 19, 2011, the Court is convinced that an extension for a period of six (6) months is justified and in the child's best interest. [ 13 ] The child should therefore be reintegrated in his foster family following the end of the present foster care measure.

The foster family should be the one designated in the review report and should that not be the case, an application for review should be filed in Court. [ 14 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 16 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child in danger; [ 17 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on November 8, 2011, in the following manner:

a) the foster care of the child in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six (6) months, starting on May 1, 2012;

b) the foster care of the child in a foster family, in accordance with the decision rendered on April 19, 2011, until he reaches the age of majority, starting November 1, 2012;

c) that a person working for an establishment, provide aid counsel and assistance to the child, his foster parents and his mother during the foster care measure; [ 18 ] AUTHORIZES the maintaining of personal relations between the mother and the child; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contacts between the mother and the child be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection as to their nature, frequency and modalities; [ 20 ] ORDERS to the police to collaborate to the execution of the foster care measure if requested to do so, by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court.

__________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. Me Cassandra Neptune Lawyer for the children Me Alexandre Cimon Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer of the mother Date of hearing: May 1, 2012