2011 QCCQ 5359, 2011 QCCQ 5359

Protection de la jeunesse — 11863 2011 QCCQ 5359 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000352-101 DATE: February 3, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Adoptive Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Adoptive Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a petition for the review of a petition under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X also know as C, born on […], 1997. [ 2 ] The child was present and represented by a lawyer, as was the adoptive mother. The adoptive father was absent at the hearing although he was duly served. [ 3 ] The caregivers are declared parties acting in the interest of the child. The evidence reveals that they have been raising the youth since birth and consider him as an adoptive son. The evidence shows the biological mother has never taken care of the child. The Court agrees to proceed in her absence. THE FACTS [ 4 ] On July 14, 2010, [Social Worker 2] declared that the security and development of X were endangered under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act on grounds of abandonment and serious behavioural disturbance of the child who was constantly frustrated by his parents' incapacity to take care of him.

The child was entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with reintegration in a foster family when the situation would allow it. [ 5 ] The evidence tendered by way of admissions and testimonies convinces the Court that the security and development of the child remain endangered by reason of his parents' abandonment and to a lesser extent due the child's serious behavioural disturbance. [ 6 ] Since the last Court hearing, X has made great efforts to improve his behaviour, particularly by completing a twelve-week anger management program.

Furthermore, his academic performances have also greatly improved to the point where his teacher refers to the child as being gifted. [ 7 ] However, the positive changes have their limits. During the last month, the staff members of the rehabilitation centre have noticed increasing negative behaviour on the part of X, such as temper tantrums.

According to his primary educator these outbursts are directly linked to the child's feeling of abandonment, as his parents haven't made any effort to contact or visit him at the rehabilitation centre. [ 8 ] Although the father was encouraged to support his son during his stay at the rehabilitation centre, he never called him. He

has no real understanding of his son's needs. As for the mother, she came back to city A two days before the hearing after spending a whole year in city B without giving any news neither to her son nor social services. From the representations made by her lawyer, she is now ready to be present in her son's life. The evidence doesn't support this vague intent as the mother chose not to testify at the hearing. [ 9 ] The evidence shows that X's behavioural problems are an unfortunate consequence of his parent's abandonment.

Although the child is committed at bettering himself, he still needs help considering the void created by his parents' absence. For these reasons, the Court is convinced that the security and development of the child remain endangered. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 10 ] At the outset of the hearing, the Director of Youth Protection changed its recommendation of placement until majority for a placement of five months in a rehabilitation centre. [ 11 ] The Director of Youth Protection approached a foster family in city C in view of a long-term placement for the child.

However, X clearly expressed the desire to return to city A, to the point that he refused to consider living elsewhere. [ 12 ] The applicant feels the elaboration of a life project for the child outside of city A is deemed to failure, considering the boys view. The rarity of foster families in city A makes the elaboration of a life project difficult. [ 13 ] After the mother's sudden return in city A, she must realize that her behaviour during the next months will be under scrutiny.

To create false hope for her son or, on the contrary, to ignore his existence could have a devastating effect on this very vulnerable child. The mother should seek the support of the Director of Youth Protection in order to ensure his wellbeing. [ 14 ] X still needs a structured environment considering his violent outbursts. However, the Court underlines his efforts and invites him to continue. [ 15 ] X's behaviour during the last month proves to what extent he longs for love and support, which his parents lack the capacity to provide. Following the last paragraph of

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act, the Court believes it is in the best interest of X to offer him a permanent life project to insure his stability, which he desperately seeks and needs. The child deserves security and healthy emotional development in order to increase his chances of having a bright and successful future.

In this regard, time is of the essence. [ 16 ] FOR THE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 1997, are still endangered; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the child to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre for a period of five months; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the child be transferred to the A Group Home as soon as the situation allows it; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts and communications between the child and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the frequency and modalities; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his parents for a period of 10 months; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the D.Y.P. frame a life project for X with a foster family; [ 24 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Girouard, Adam & associates Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Denis Trottier Legal Aid A Lawyer for the child M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for the adoptive mother Date of hearing: January 25, 2011