2018 QCCQ 18230, 2018 QCCQ 18230

Protection de la jeunesse — 189372 2018 QCCQ 18230 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] Youth Division No.: 640-41-001989-166 DATE: October 24, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE BEAUCHEMIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF X, born on […], 2007 Child ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A child and youth protection centre Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( ss. 73.1 and 95 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ JB3406 WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the “Director”) submitted an application to the Court for a review of the decision rendered on February 13, 2018, entrusting the child to a foster home until August 31, 2018, and ordering various assistance measures, including follow-up by social services for the same period. [ 2 ] The Director alleged the following facts.

At the end of April 2018, the mother quit the training program in Town B and went back to live at the Native Women’s Shelter in Town C. When the mother was living in Town C, the children visited her at the Native Women’s Shelter every two weekends in May and every weekend in June. On July 29, 2018, the mother left for Town D for a summer job. When questioned about her plan, the mother disclosed that she would start a school program, in Town C, at the end of August. She is not ready to resume the care of the child as she does not have a stable place to live.

Since the last Court hearing, the father has not had contact with the child. The child is doing well in her foster family who is willing to take care of her until she is of full age. [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the Court entrust the child to a foster family until she is of full age and order several assistance measures, including follow-up by social services for the same period. [ 4 ] The mother and the child challenge those recommendations and want a return of the child to her mother’s care. According to the social worker’s testimony, the father knew about the present hearing.

He told the social worker that he would be present. According to the mother’s testimony, the father was aware of the hearing and did not plan to be present because he had to go back to work. He left today for work in the Canadian Royalties mine, without coming to Court and without mandating a lawyer to represent him. The undersigned decided to proceed in the absence of the father.

Issue to resolve [ 5 ] Has the Director provided evidence of the need to entrust the child to a foster family until her full age or has the mother’s situation evolved to the point that she is ready to resume her child’s care? Evidence [ 6 ] The evidence reveals the following facts. The child is eleven years old. The Court has the situation of her brother Y before it as well. They have two other siblings who were adopted in 2010 and 2011. The mother is pregnant by a man she met up North and she does not want to keep the baby. The Director was informed of the mother’s pregnancy very recently.

She is looking for a traditional adoption for that child. X and Y have been told of her plan. [ 7 ] To understand the recent developments in the mother’s situation and her plan, it is appropriate to look back to where she and her children come from. The court file starts in November 2015. At that time, the mother was struggling with conjugal violence, drinking problem, an unstable relationship with the father and mental health issues. [ 8 ] In the judgment dated November 10, 2015, under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , Pauline Laforce J.C.Q. pointed out that the family has had a longstanding history of conjugal violence to which the children were exposed and of neglect of the children. The parents had a pattern of separating and reconciling. The parents were struggling with drinking problems and the mother, with mental health issues. The children were placed in foster homes a few times.

Reports concerning the said issues were made in June 2008, October 2009, February 2010, December 2010, February 2012, March 2014, May 2014 and April 2015. [ 9 ] The mother’s evolution previous to the judgment dated February 13, 2018 [ 10 ] In 2015, the parents had a drinking problem and planned to attend an intake treatment program. [ 11 ] At that time, the mother had been receiving services from the Native Women’s Shelter for a few years and her cooperation with the workers was good. [ 12 ] In July 2015, the mother asked that her children be placed in foster care to allow her to attend a six-week intake therapy for her drinking problem.

She did not complete it for administrative reasons. In September 2015, she stated that she had been sober for quite a long time. But, in June 2015, X stated that, at times, her mother brought the children to their babysitter, so she could drink. When they were with the babysitter, the children missed school. [ 13 ] In October 2015, the mother started a new vocational program and received financial support from the A School Board. [ 14 ] Laforce J. stated that the children had a strong attachment to their mother and X wanted to return to her mother’s care.

Laforce J. maintained the children with their mother, to the exclusion of the father and deemed that the file would probably be closed once Youth Protection services had offered follow up until June 30, 2016. [ 15 ] At the beginning of April 2016, the mother became overwhelmed by her parental role and, on April 20, 2016, the children were placed in foster care. The mother decided to move to the James Bay to live with her boyfriend, in Wemindji. On May 20, 2016, she came back to Town A. [ 16 ] On June 17, 2016, Jean Gravel J.C.Q. maintained the children with their mother.

A few days later, the children returned to their mother’s care in Town A. In early July, 2016, the mother and her boyfriend drank at home to the point that the mother passed out. In September 2016, she was hospitalized again for suicidal ideation, again in October 2016 and, at the end of October, she was hospitalized at the Douglas Institute, in Town C. The children expressed their wish to leave Town A and come back to Town C. [ 17 ] At the end of January 2017, the mother was put out of the MNQ because she came back drunk.

At the time, she was living with a new boyfriend. [ 18 ] In paragraph 9 of the judgment dated May 27, 2017, the undersigned wrote the following with regard to the mother: She contemplated the possibility of undergoing to treatment in Town F for her addiction to alcohol. Having taken cognizance of the information on the various programs available to her, she decided to go to Portage, which offers a longer program. She chose that one to ensure she would receive intensive and lasting therapy.

She wanted to be equipped to eventually minimize her possibility of recidivism. [ 19 ] In February 2017, she started participating in the A program, which offers individualized coaching, counselling, and essential skill learning. She was scheduled to enter the Portage treatment program in mid-August. The children were entrusted to foster care until February 27, 2018, to let her attend the six-month Portage program. They were returned to the same foster mother with whom they had been since 2016.

The Court allowed the mother to have the children with her at the Native Women’s Shelter, every weekend, under conditions. [ 20 ] The mother stuck to her plan during the summer of 2017. She left Town C to go to Town G where she had summer employment. She kept in regular contact with her children. On August 8, 2017 and on August 15, 2017, she never showed up and was nowhere to be found. She was supposed to attend the Portage Treatment Program. She did not. [ 21 ] She completed an inpatient program in Town H during the autumn of 2017, then she tried to find a job in Town C, without success.

The last visit she requested with the children was on October 18, 2017, just before leaving for Town I. There, she attended a year and a half training program and lived in a student residence. The mother took part of an AEC program called Nunavik Arctic Guide. On February 18, 2018, she was on track to successfully complete the program which should have been completed by end of the summer 2018.

[ 22 ] The mother filed a letter dated February 18, 2018, signed by [social worker 2], responsible for the A Residence and Adult Education center in Town I School Board, which states the following at the third paragraph: As a resident of the residence A had to follow rules who are set to make it a safe environment for everybody. At fall 2017, A had to adjust herself to a rule about consumption of alcohol who’s not allowed in school and residence.

After a meeting with the responsible of the center, myself, A seems to have understood the importance of this rule and we never had to intervene with her for the same reasons. ( sic ) [ 23 ] That means that the mother had resumed drinking after her therapy at Akwasasne, even knowing that it was forbidden at the residence. [ 24 ] On February 23, 2018, Gravel J. wrote the following, at paragraph 13: The mother seems to have a clearer plan to be able to care for her children.

The Director is still hoping to reintegrate the children with their mother if she can demonstrate more stability. [ 25 ] Gravel, J. ordered that the children be entrusted to a foster family and authorized the children’s return to their mother’s care, if the situation allowed. The main facts since the last judgment [ 26 ] The mother testified. At the time of the hearing, the mother was five months pregnant. She stated that she stopped drinking when she found out she was pregnant. She said that the child is expected in December. Before being pregnant, she drank but “not that regularly” because she was in school.

She stated that she does not need support for her drinking problem, even if support is provided at the Native Women’s Shelter. Therapy is offered at the Native Women’s Shelter but she said that she “does not need therapy”. [ 27 ] In Town J, the mother studied Nunavik Artic Guide. When she applied to this program, she knew it was the key to going back to college, because she “has always known that she wanted to work for her people in Town C”.

The mother did not complete the program and, as soon as she knew that she was accepted in the K.I. program in Town C, she moved back to Town C at the end of March 2018, to be near her children. [ 28 ] The mother asked for weekend visits with the children at the Native Shelter, but the caregiver suggested visits every other weekend, until the end of June. The mother felt that she had no choice but to agree.

During the weekends, the mother stated that “everything the children asked for, we do it”. [ 29 ] At the end of June 2018, she went to Town D, for a summer job at College A, a summer day camp for kids that are at school. She was there for five weeks, one week of training and four weeks working as a counsellor. She asked for her children to visit her for a week in Town D. It had initially been granted but is was ultimately denied by the Director. She kept contact with her children once a week, on Facetime.

She went back to Town C on August 8, 2018. [ 30 ] On August 16, 2018, the mother was enrolled with the [school A] as a full-time student. In August 2018, the [school A] organization provided the mother with an apartment at the A Apartments, in Town C. It is a two-bedroom apartment, large enough for her and her two children and the family will have access a three-bedroom apartment when it becomes available. According to the mother’s testimony, she will have the possibility of living there for the next four years.

She will be fully sponsored during her studies and [school A] will provide for all that the children require. The [school A] worker even provides the child’s school registration. [ 31 ] The one-year program will start on September 4, 2018. First, she has to learn the Inuit history from the years passed “in order to know what really happened to Inuits from the government, the residential schools, what affected them”. That will be the program for the current school year.

She is planning, afterwards, to study psychology for three years, at [school B] College, under [school A], to become a street worker in Town C, to help her people. [ 32 ] [School A] pays the students and the rent depends on how many children live with the student. They also pay for tutoring, activities, extra activities chosen by the parents for their children. They provide for a driving license and for anything that might be needed, as far as the parents attend the program.

They also deal with the landlords if they want to live in an apartment of their own instead of living on the campus, but [school A] will pay for the apartment. [ 33 ] The children would go to a French school, in Town C. The reason for this choice is that it is Québec law and both parents want their children to learn French. A [school A] worker is responsible for registration. [ 34 ] The mother asked her children if they would want to continue karate class if they were returned to her. The mother agrees with whatever her children want, but she prefers they do sports. She wants them to have Inuktitut classes.

It is the most important for her. The mother accompanied her children a few times to their drama therapy, near A metro station. She does not mind them continuing this activity because her children really like it. She wants to ask [school A] if the therapy could be provided. “They need therapy because of what they had to go through during the last two years.” They had difficulty staying in their foster home with other few children. She would bring them at the drama therapy “if it is provided”. [ 35 ] The mother acknowledged that her children “needed what they had during the last two years”.

She had a “rough time”, but now, she feels ready to resume her children’s care. She wants her children back with her. The mother stated that she “has always been ready to have her children since she conceived them”. “I want them. I need them. They need me.” [ 36 ] According to the mother, X seems to be “so stressed by her environment in foster care, where other children are entrusted”. The mother stated that her daughter does not like her foster family.

[ 37 ] The mother does not mind dealing with Youth Protection services “until I get it done”. The father’s situation History [ 38 ] The father had a drinking problem that he did not acknowledge. At the time of the judgment dated November 10, 2015, Laforce J. stated that the parents had been separated since 2011, with the father living in Town A, and the mother, in Town C. Because of the costs engendered by that situation, he saw his children sporadically.

Because of the history of conjugal violence the children witnessed, Laforce J. entrusted the children to the care of their mother, at the exclusion of the father and ordered, at paragraph 40, “that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director”. [ 39 ] Many attempts were made by the Director to reach the father, to no avail. [ 40 ] The children saw their father at the beginning of January 2015, when the family went up North. The father was intoxicated once during that period.

He offered to care for the children when the mother decided to attend an intake treatment in June 2015. Because of his drinking problems and of his lack of cooperation with the Director, the children were entrusted to a foster family. [ 41 ] The father has an extensive criminal record dating back to 2001. In April 2016, he was under conditions to respect: not to communicate with the mother, except for access rights, not be within a 200-meter radius of her home or workplace or within a 50-meter radius of herself, and not to consume alcohol or drugs. [ 42 ] On June 17, 2016, the father was present in Court.

Gravel, J. ordered that contact between the children and their father “be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision”. [ 43 ] In December 2016, the father asked the Director to go to Town C to visit his children. He did not respect the visit calendar and went to a friend’s house instead. He missed his flight and visited his children for one hour, just before coming back to Town A. [ 44 ] On May 25, 2017, the undersigned wrote the following, at 15: The father asked for visits with his children after being released from prison.

He did not respect the calendar of visits. He is asking for more visits. He was in the courthouse this morning. He left at 1 p.m. and never came back. He saw his children briefly at the airport. He had an argu-ment with the mother and he left, after just saying “Bye” to his children. [ 45 ] The father asked to go to Town C from July 31 to August 4, 2017, to have visits with his children. On August 2, 2017, the youth worker sent an email to the father to get some news. He answered on August 6, asking to stay longer and to rebook his hotel room. He never saw his children.

The Director tried to contact him, but he never called back. The Director did not have any further news from the father. The main facts since the last judgment [ 46 ] The mother testified about the recent contact the father had with his children. She stated that the father does not live in Town A, but in Town C. On August 10, 2018, the mother contacted the father by Messenger. The children were with her in a restaurant in downtown Town C. The father was with them for two hours. [ 47 ] The mother had had the children with her at the Native Women’s Shelter since Friday, August 17, 2018.

On August 20, 2018, the mother contacted the father again. In her testimony, she stated at first that she needed the father’s help for two nights, then for three days. Then she stated that she needed him mainly for some help to get their luggage at the Native Women’s Shelter. She also wanted him to babysit Y, while she would go shopping with X for his birthday gift. After the shopping, the four of them went to the Native Women’s Shelter and brought the luggage to the Crown Plaza Hotel where the mother and the children would be staying during the children’s visit.

The mother’s goal in going to the hotel was to have quality time with her children and for them to go swimming in that hotel. The youth worker had agreed with that plan. In the evening, the father asked the mother if he was going back home, in his apartment. In the evening, the mother offered him to spend time with the kids, and stay with them at the hotel. “He ended up staying with us”, stated the mother. The mother stated that she was aware that, to have contact with his children, the father had to be stable.

The mother did not inform the youth worker that her plans had changed, as the father would be with them at the hotel. According to the mother, it was not planned. [ 48 ] The father does not seem interested in being involved in his children’s lives. He never called the Director. He had contact with his children by telephone on a few occasions, via the mother. The Director alleged that he has not had contact with the children since the last Court order and that he had not seen them for almost two years. The children’s situation History [ 49 ] The children were placed together in foster homes a few times.

They have been fostered by Ms. F since 2010: in December 2010 and January 2011 for a 30-day period, jn 2013, for respite support to the children throughout weekends, in April 2014, during the mother’s emergency hospitalisation, on July 20, 2015, for six weeks during the mother’s impatient program at Onen’to:kon, in November 2016, at the mother’s request. The children have been residing with Ms. F, in Town F, since then. [ 50 ] When they were first entrusted to Ms. F, they were introverted, had difficulty making friends and were rarely smiling. In June 2016, the children returned to their mother’s care in Town A.

In July 2016, she found her boyfriend dead in the bathroom where he committed suicide. The mother became suicidal and needed to be hospitalized for a significant period. The children could not adapt to being fostered in an Inuit foster home, as they had lived in Town C most of their lives. In November 2016, the children were moved back

in Town C. In 2016, Dereck had many tantrums and cried often. [ 51 ] While the children were with their mother. X took on a maternal role with her young brother and the children often missed school. The mother did not attend the parent-teacher meetings. X failed Grade 1. Both children had difficulties in French and were transferred to an English school for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017, X attended C School, in Grade 3, then moved to a French school before being transferred in March 2017, to the Mohawk school, which, being a smaller school, could offer more individual support.

It was the mother’s choice that the children attend a French school. The main facts since the last judgment [ 52 ] Both children are happy in their new school. They attend judo and karate classes. [ 53 ] The foster mother organized tutoring for the children and Inuktitut classes at Native Town C. [ 54 ] X does not want to leave her school. [ 55 ] She is very involved in her community. She participates in crime prevention sessions. She is in the Rock Camp. Last summer, she had many different activities. [ 56 ] Both children started drama therapy by the end of January 2017.

The therapy was regular from April 2017 to June 2017. X asked for the drama therapy to continue. Those sessions have been very helpful for both children who became more capable of expressing their emotions. [ 57 ] Both of them have a strong bond with their mother and the foster mother has ensured that a positive link between the two is maintained. X asks to stay with her mother, “with respites at F’s”. [ 58 ] The children were told by their mother that, after the present hearing, they could go back to their mother.

X felt anxious. [ 59 ] The Revision Report dated July 20, 2018, sums up their situation, at 8: Currently, the children are very well integrated with their foster home; they are appreciated at school and their needs are properly fulfilled. Mrs. F has been implicated for many years in the children’s life. She is making sure they are feeling safe and that they are developing well. She is also taking sure that they have access to cultural activities. With all the constant support, Y and X are positively growing.

The testimony of the social worker [ 60 ] In the last two years, the mother has not had the stability required to try a progressive return of the children to her care. She did not have autonomy either. What was expected by the Director was that the mother have her own apartment without being supported and be able to provide by herself for her children. Her living conditions have always been supported for the past years. Consequently, her contact with the children has always taken place in the context of a “shadow structure”. The mother has not been able to be on her own.

The worker stated that the Native Women’s Shelter is not a normal home; it is a shelter. Consequently, it was very difficult to evaluate the mother’s abilities and her capacity to fulfill her children’s needs. [ 61 ] Generally, communication between the mother and the youth workers has been difficult. Whole months passed without any news from the mother. If she had taken time to expose her plan, she could have been counselled adequately regarding the steps she had to take to resume her children’s care. [ 62 ] The mother was not in Town C most of the time last year.

When she returned from Town J, she informed the worker that her plan was to go back to school in September for one year. Meanwhile, she intended to stay at the Native Women’s Shelter in Town C, and she wanted to go up North to work this last summer. The worker informed the mother that it was not a good plan to test the children’s return to their mother because she would not be there during the summer, after their school year. At the beginning of June 2018, the mother presented the exact same plan she had given in April.

According to the social worker, the mother never mentioned that she came back from Town J to have easier access to her children. [ 63 ] When the mother was in Town J, there was limited communication between the mother and the youth worker. Last summer, contact between the children and their mother in Town D was denied by the Director because they would see her a few weeks later as they would be travelling to Town A for the purpose of the present hearing, and because the cost of that trip would have been very expensive, considering the general context of the mother’s choice.

The Director suggested that the children have a longer stay in Town A instead, before the court hearing, so they could meet with relatives, but the mother refused. [ 64 ] According to the social worker, if the children were returned to the mother, they would be at high risk that their initial vulnerabilities come back. The mother can be very adequate with her children. For the last two years, the time she spent with them has been inconsistent. Most of the time, she was out of town for different activities. [ 65 ] The mother announced her complete plan only two days ago.

It is the plan that she submitted to the Court at the hearing. She has a plan for herself, but it is not adapted to her children’s needs. They need stability and a predictable environment to prevent their vulnerabilities from reappearing. The mother had to show autonomy and stability. She had to adapt to the children, and not the reverse. She can be a part-time mother. The worker stated that the mother did not inform him of the contact she allowed between the father and the children. He only learned of it from the mother a few days ago. The testimony of F, foster mother for the children

[ 66 ] Ms. F has been a foster family for 46 years. She is an Early Childhood Educator and a Personal support worker and has training in Aboriginal Social work. She has two other children, 8 and 5, and the four children are all like siblings. There is also one baby from Town A in their home, under an emergency placement. She lives with her husband and her mother, age 81. There are seven bedrooms in the house. [ 67 ] She was the first foster family for X and Y, ten years ago, when they went into care. Maintaining Inuit culture is very important to her.

She is a co-founder of A which is a support group of foster and adoptive families of Inuit and Native children. They are in contact with Inuit positive role models in Town C. [ 68 ] Both children have been attending Inuktituk lessons once a week for the last year and a half, and the frequency of these lessons is expected to increase in the fall. [ 69 ] The mother has many visits. Ms. F has no problem transporting the children to where the mother is. After the visits, the children will sometimes regress and come back to old patterns.

They are happy and also sad. [ 70 ] In January 2018, the father called once, and he had a visit about two weeks ago. When the children are with their mother, they occasionally speak with their father on phone. It also happened two or three times that the father was on the phone when the mother called her children at the foster home. The mother organized that contact. The foster mother was not aware of it. [ 71 ] According to Ms. F, the children have a lot of friends in the community. They like their school. Their social skills have improved a lot. X answered someone at the mall asking if Ms.

F was her mother: “She is not my mother, but she is the one who takes care of me every day.” [ 72 ] The children were to be removed to another home because she had to retire but Batshaw reviewed their criteria. Ms. F does not believe in multiple moves. It is better that the children have permanency. She will be the foster family for X and Y until their full age should the Court decide that they need placement. Analysis [ 73 ] What has been the family evolution in regard to what led the children to be placed? At first, the parents had drinking problems.

Nothing can be said of the father because of his lack of involvement in the follow-up by Youth Protection services. The mother had a few short-term treatments. Yet, she drank right after her therapy in Town C, in fall 2017, even knowing that drinking was forbidden at the A Residence and Adult Education center in Town I. The mother stopped drinking five months ago when she found out she was pregnant. That is certainly a good decision for herself and for the unborn child. But, she had also taken a very good decision, in May 2017, when she decided to attend the Portage treatment program.

She knew that it was the right choice for her. The undersigned congratulated her for her maturity in that decision. Without any explanation, the mother changed her mind and opted for a less constraining program. Changing her mind was a bad decision. According to the evidence, we should understand that she relapsed much more than once. [ 74 ] The parents also had a highly conflictual relationship. The mother received counselling from the Native Women’s Shelter.

If the father had done anything with regard to conjugal violence or anger management, he would have probably been proud to provide the Director or the Court with that evidence. His absence leads us to conclude that he has likely done nothing. The conjugal violence was so severe that, in April 2016, he was under conditions to respect: not to communicate with the mother, except for access rights, not be within a 200-metre radius of her home or workplace or within a 50- metre radius of herself and not to consume alcohol or drugs.

The mother was very imprudent in August 2018, by letting the father stay with her at the hotel while the children were present. The evidence showed that, on May 25, 2017, he had an argument with the mother at the airport, in front of the children. The father has always been an issue in the file. It is important that he shows up. The parents had a very unstable relationship. Is the mother attempting to resume her relationship with the father? She is the one who offered to the father that he stay at the hotel with her and the children last August. Her testimony was contradictory.

At first, she stated that she needed the father at the hotel for two or three nights, then she said that she needed him for some help with the luggage. [ 75 ] The mother, herself, is always structured by different organisations such as the Native Women’s Shelter, the B Residence and Adult Education center in Town I, the different treatment centres she attended, and, for the upcoming future, her plan is to stay at the A residential program. She could not have been met alone with her children in her own home for follow-up, because she has no home.

She is not autonomous. [ 76 ] Why was it necessary for the mother to attend the Nasivvik Residence and Adult Education center in Town I to prepare her admission to college? She could have done it in Town C, near her children, and maintained regular contact with them, despite her studies. In fact, she has travelled between Town C and the North every single year since 2015. She jeopardized the regularity of her contact with her children. [ 77 ] Presently, her goal is to become a community worker for her people in Town C.

Her children will be adolescents in four years, the time required for her to finish her studies. Will she continue moving from Town C to the North if she has her children under her care? Recent history indicates that this is a strong probability. She never stayed in Town C for a whole school year. With respect, the last time the children were up North, before the Court entrusted them to foster home, they did not like being there and asked to come back to Town C. [ 78 ] The children struggled to adapt to a suitable school. The mother’s goal is to bring them back to the French speaking school.

It would be a setback for both children that could seriously undermine their interest in school. It is foreseeable that the mother will harm her children if she becomes in a position to follow through on that project. [ 79 ] Is the mother’s current plan in the best interest of the children? The mother knew that the children’s return to her care was authorized by the last court order, if the situation allowed. When the time came to intensify contact with her children, she left for Town D.

Even if the children had been allowed to go with her for one week, as the mother requested, it could not have been considered as a partial return to her care. Having a vacation with children is one thing, but having them on a daily basis, with responsibilities, is quite

another. During her time with the children, the mother does “whatever the children want”. They go to La Ronde, they go swimming, they go shopping. But life is not an amusement park. The parents need to maintain housing, manage a budget, prepare meals, feed the children, dress them appropriately, supervise homework and lessons, meet with the teachers, go to the doctor when they are sick, coordinate the extracurricular activities and be a positive role model for their children.

Until now, because of the mother’s personal choices, no one from the DPY has been able to observe her as an autonomous and stable parent. [ 80 ] Will the mother stick to her plan? In the past, she attended a full-time vocational business program that was funded through the Kativik School Board. She withdrew from the program when she returned to Town A, just as she withdrew in April 2018 from the Town J program that was supposed to last for a year and a half. [ 81 ] A plan is still a plan.

What is required to have the children back in the mother’s care is for her to show that she can put her plan into action, in a stable way. Her main plan was to have her children back with her, but she did not make a connection between that ultimate goal and the steps she had to go through to reach it. [ 82 ] Mtre. Neptune is right: a person on welfare can be an autonomous parent as well as student parent who benefits from social resources to maintain his or her living standards.

Such situations are very different from being taken care of in each aspect of one’s adult life: lodging, food, transportation, schooling, vacation, all the services for the children. It may be very comfortable, but it does not teach autonomy and is disconnected from the mother’s needs as a mother for her children. In the mother’s plan, even the children’s school registration would be taken care of by the worker. [ 83 ] The evidence demonstrates that the mother informed the youth worker of her plan two days prior to the hearing.

It was a bad decision because she could have been helped to prepare her moves in a realistic way for the children. [ 84 ] Contact with the father should be determined by the Director and his cooperation is mandatory before reinstalling contact between the children and their father. [ 85 ] The undersigned agrees with the analysis of the situation in the Revision Report, at 7: The mother’s recent life choices have moved her further from her chil-dren. Without criticizing the mother’s choices her current life decisions are making us question her priorities.

After many years, the mother still cannot provide for herself as she still benefits from support housing and is going along with this plan for the coming year. Furthermore, she considers this precarious environment adequate to have her children back in her care. This shows that the mother is prioritizing her desire to be with her children instead of understanding what they really need. [ 86 ] Both children have a strong bond with their mother, but they cannot be put on hold indefinitely, waiting for adequate parents who care for them. Obviously, a child’s love for his parents is often unconditional.

The children have been in their foster home for many years. They have finally adapted to their last school. They have many activities. They have drama therapy that is helping a lot. They need stability. [ 87 ] The mother had a chance to demonstrate quickly that she was taking steps to treat her major issues. At this point in time, the children are entitled to continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to their needs and age, on a permanent basis.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 88 ] ALLOWS the application; [ 89 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger.

AS MEASURES DEEMED TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST, THE COURT: [ 90 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted until she is of full age to the foster family of F chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 91 ] ORDERS that all contact between the child and her parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the terms and degree of supervision, the frequency being established with the consent of the parents and the social worker, taking into consideration the child’s best interest; [ 92 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 93 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 94 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 95 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family until she is of full age; [ 96 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of the A child and youth protection centre, who will see that the measures are carried out.

SIGNED IN TOWN C October 24, 2018 LUCILLE BEAUCHEMIN J.C.Q. Mtre. Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Cassandra Neptune Counsel for the child Mtre. Marianne Léonard Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: August 23, 2018