2013 QCCQ 19711, 2013 QCCQ 19711

Protection de la jeunesse — 138345 2013 QCCQ 19711 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004330-125 DATE: December 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2006 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A (deceased) -and- 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of the order rendered on March 28, 2013 concerning X, born on […], 2006. [ 2 ] The preceding order determines that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of parental responsibilities not being assumed by the parents.

Within measures of aid and counsel for six months, the Court entrusts the child in the care of his maternal grandparents, permitting his progressive integration in a foster family. The Court further permits contacts between the child and his father. [ 3 ] The Director alleges the child's positive evolution in foster care. Considering that a return in his family environment is not foreseeable at this juncture, it is in his best interests to prolong the measures in view of consolidating his situation and proceeding to the

elaboration of an alternate life plan. [ 4 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file. The father agrees to the general objectives of the intervention, while requesting that the Court clarify his contacts with his son. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [1] After their mother's death in September 2012, X and his older half-brother Y, reside with their maternal grandparents. From May to June 2013, they progressively integrate the foster family, where they remain to this day. [2] The children function positively in this milieu.

They report feeling secure with their foster family and to seeing themselves living there until their adulthood. The foster parents are ready to commit to the brothers on a permanent basis. [3] The children maintain regular contacts with their extended family, especially their maternal grandparents. [4] The father resides in Manitoba. Since the last order, the establishment of contacts between X and his father suffers many impediments, resulting in little effective communications. The father's personal situation render him unable to visit his son in Quebec.

As to other forms of communication, the father offers a phone to the children to facilitate contacts. The grandparents confiscate the phone from the children shortly thereafter. In the foster family, the tools and equipment are not available to permit visual long-distance contacts (ex. Skype, Facetime). [5] As of September, the parties renew their efforts to initiate contacts. A

schedule is put in place for weekly telephone contacts. During these contacts, X recognizes his father, shows no resistance to speak to him, nor any distress. The contacts are positive. [ 6 ] The foster family offers access to a computer for the contacts, but as they cannot ensure the confidentiality of their email address, hesitate to move forward in this regard. [ 7 ] Although the last judgment permits contacts between Y and the father, he refuses any form of contact. He underlines negative memories of Mr. B and harbors feelings of anger towards him.

The evidence shows that X is subject to this influence, creating conflicted emotions in regards to his father. [ 8 ] The foster mother testifies that her exchanges with the father are courteous and polite. He thanks her for the care given to the children and recognizes that they are well in this milieu. [ 9 ] X is still adjusting to the many changes having occurred since his mother's passing. He requires a stable and supportive environment to appease the anxieties stemming from the instability he suffers in the last years. [ 10 ] Mr.

B shows genuine affection and concern for both children, but is unable to maintain a stable and coherent relationship with them - especially since his return to Manitoba in 2009. His continued distance, both geographic and emotional, impedes the establishment of an enriching relationship with X.

The episodic absence of contacts further obstructs the situation. [ 11 ] Having succeeded in finding a resource able to receive both brothers and to respond to their respective needs constitutes an encouraging step towards resolving the situation creating the endangerment. [ 12 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and the development of the child continue to be in danger and that it is appropriate that he continue to benefit from the application of protective measures. [ 13 ] Although the situation of the father may evolve, the evidence, in conjunction with the period of placement, dictate that the next period of measures serve to consolidate X in his foster family and proceed to the elaboration of an alternative life plan. [ 14 ] The Court reiterates that the measures encourage the relationship between X and his father and take into consideration the factual impediments resulting from the distance between them.

Although the evidence demonstrates that this relationship is neither a source of comfort nor stability for X, the nurturing of this bond remains pertinent as X is receptive to his father and their contacts are profitable in this regard.

The evolution of the relationship in the next year will contribute to determining the place that the father will hold in his son's life on a more long-term basis. [ 15 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the child be maintained in the same foster family as his brother Y; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be upon agreement between the parties as to frequency, modalities and degree of supervision; [ 21 ] PERMITS the child to communicate with his father at his discretion and this, on a reasonable basis; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be favoured and encouraged; [ 23 ] TAKES ACT that at the present time the access rights are scheduled on a weekly basis by phone and that the parties agree that the best interests of the child dictate that these contact permit a visual interaction;

[ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] SHOULD the father not respond within 48 hours to request to this effect: [ 26 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the father and AUTHORIZES Mr. C and Mrs.

D to sign the authorizations required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 27 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will elaborate an alternative life plan for the child; [ 28 ] ALL THESE measures for a period of one year; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Marie La Roche Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the father Me Karine P.

Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 22 and December 18, 2013