2017 QCCQ 17081, 2017 QCCQ 17081

Protection de la jeunesse — 177639 2017 QCCQ 17081 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030918-163 DATE : September 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2016 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant And A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on September 7 th , 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) first seized Court of a motion for revision and motion for provisional measures on August 15 th , 2016. The facts alleged then pertained to contacts the maternal grandmother was seeking to have with the child. [ 3 ] In March 2017, the Director presented an amended motion for revision and extension of the decision rendered on May 2 nd , 2016, by the undersigned.

The Director was then asking that the child be entrusted to foster care until his age of majority and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for the same period of time. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in the motion in relation to the contacts of the child with the maternal grandmother were quickly discussed and resolved, on a provisional basis, on December 22 nd , 2016. [ 5 ] On the merits, the mother admitted the following: • that she continues to struggle with drug consumption issues, that the parents have not followed-up requests for random drug testing and have not sought treatment for their drug consumption issues; • that visits between the child and the mother are positive; • that the father was often observed to have considerable difficulties soothing the child during visits but that the situation

significantly improved overtime; [ 6 ] The mother would agree to the child remaining in foster care only for one year. She wishes to have unsupervised contacts with the child and would like the child to have ongoing and frequent contacts with his siblings; [ 7 ] On the merits, the father made the same admissions as the mother except that he denied that she continues to struggle with drug consumption issues.

In addition, the father admits that the parents continue to have a conflictual relationship, that they have, at times, conflicts in front of the child during supervised contacts and admitted that in July 2016, he denied regular use of cocaine but acknowledge that traces of cocaine could be found in his system. The father agrees with continued placement for one year, wishes to have unsupervised visits with his son and agrees with the recommendation made by the mother that the siblings see each other more often. [ 8 ] The evidence was provided over two days.

Following the hearing of April 19 th , 2017, the undersigned requested to meet with the lawyers and conducted a conférence préparatoire . The Tribunal raised concerns to the effect that the child’s rights may have been wronged by the Director. The attorneys were invited to consider this possibility and prepare their arguments accordingly. [ 9 ] On September 7 th , 2017, the inquiry was to be continued and concluded. The Director admitted that the child’s rights had been wronged by the Director.

After discussions between the parties, the Director amended the conclusions and suggested continued entrustment of the child in foster care until April 21 st , 2018. All parties including counsel for the child agreed with the new recommendations. CONTEXT [ 10 ] As mentioned earlier, the parents have admitted partly to some of their difficulties as alleged by the Director.

In agreeing with the continued entrustment of their son in foster care initially for a period of one year, they recognized that they are not in a position to care for him. [ 11 ] On many occasions, the parents have failed to make themselves available to visit their son as planned. The evidence reveals that between February and April 2017, twenty-three visits were organized between the child and his parents. Five of these visits had to be cancelled for various reasons.

Father attended eleven visits while the mother attended seven. [ 12 ] The parents have continued to struggle with various personal issues (conflictual relationships, failure to seek treatment for their drug consumption issues, failure to follow-up on requests for random drug testing) and have continued, at times, to have conflicts during supervised visits with their son. [ 13 ] It appears from the testimony of the social worker that he has been very closely involved with the family. The worker regularly supervised six out of eight visits monthly.

The worker has, on numerous occasions, repeated to the parents what they had to do in order to regain custody of their son. This testimony is supported by Mrs. Rosemay St-Fort, at some point manager of the worker and later on permanency planning chair person involved in the case. [ 14 ] During the testimony of the worker, it was discovered that the mandatory intervention plans were not drafted with the parents nor with their involvement. Up until then, April 2017, the parents had never been invited to take

part in the process nor to sign the intervention plans. In fact, the expectations, goals and objectives set by the Director were never put in writing for the parents. [ 15 ] The worker was unaware that a protocol had to be followed and that the parents had to be invited and included in the drafting of the intervention plans. That situation was unbeknownst to Mrs.

St-Fort up until the situation was raised and discovered during the court hearing. [ 16 ] Immediately after, the situation was corrected and the parents were invited to participate in the drafting of two consecutive intervention plans (on April 21 st and 28 th , 2017). The parents were then requested to attend the child’s medical appointments.

Before then, the Director had requested that the foster parents attend the medical appointments of the child. [ 17 ] The Director argues that a proper remedy for the child’s rights having been wronged by the Director would be to exceptionally extend the foster care placement of the child until April 21 st , 2018. According to the Director, the consequences on the child are limited in that he continues to live with the same foster family while the parents are not in a position to assume his care. [ 18 ] The Court is not of the same opinion.

A certain confusion transpires from the expectations placed on the foster parents (rather than the parents) regarding, for example, the responsibility to attend medical appointments. [ 19 ] Since April 2017, even if the expectations have been clearly outlined in the intervention plan signed by the parents, the parents have failed to attend the three medical appointments of the child. Clearly, this is an area where the parents need guidance and support in order to be able to meet the needs of their son, assume their responsibility and attend the medical appointments.

The Director will have to provide concrete aid, counsel and assistance around his issue.

Because the first four intervention plans did not have that expectation and did not include the parents, the appropriate help and support was not provided by the Director, in a timely fashion, when it was appropriate to do so. [ 20 ] Remedy will have to include appropriate training to workers and supervisors in order to ensure that intervention plans are drafted with and include the parents in a timely fashion. [ 21 ] The evidence reveals that the contacts between the child and the maternal grandmother have to be limited and organized by the Director.

As well, contacts between the child and his siblings have to be organized by the Director on a regular basis in order for the child to develop and maintain a relationship with his siblings.

[ 22 ] The evidence reveals that the security and development of the child are still in danger as the parents are not in a position to care for him. The Director failed to draft the intervention plans provided for by the

Loi sur les services de santé et services sociaux . As a consequence, the Tribunal disregards the maximum duration of placement and extends the foster care placement of the child for a period of one year since the drafting of the first intervention plan involving the parents (April 21 st , 2017). [ 23 ] The measures recommended by the Director, under the circumstances, meet the needs of the child and are in his best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] MAINTAINS the measures court ordered on May 2nd, 2016, namely : [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to foster care; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the modalities of contacts between the child and his parents, including supervision if necessary, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS minimally the frequency of contacts at two (2) per week; [ 28 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents take the necessary steps to stabilize their situation; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his parents until April 21st, 2018; And [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and the maternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary and conditional to the grandmother refraining from making any denigrating comments whatsoever about the child’s parents and that she cooperate with the social worker; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities and duration of contacts between the child and his siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS the frequency at once (1) per month; [ 33 ] CONSIDERING the evidence; [ 34 ] CONSIDERING the admission made on behalf of the Director of Youth Protection to the effect that the child’s rights have been wronged by the Director; The Court [ 35 ] DECLARES that the child’s right has been wronged; [ 36 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide training to the workers handling « prise en charge » cases in order to make sure that intervention plans are made correctly; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the current decision be brought to the attention of the Director of Youth Protection personally; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the clerk of the Court sent the current decision to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse ; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Heidi Lechter

Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the child Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the mother Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the father Date of hearing : April 19 th and September 7 th , 2017