2016 QCCQ 17860, 2016 QCCQ 17860

Protection de la jeunesse — 168848 2016 QCCQ 17860 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030711-162 DATE : November 1, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2004 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 November 1 st , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision of a decision rendered by the undersigned on March 16 th , 2016.

The Director is asking that the child remain in foster care until April 13 th , 2017 and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The mother admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion and agrees with the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 4 ] On behalf of her client, counsel for the child admits that she has remained in foster family and that she has currently day visits with her mother. The child agrees to remain entrusted to a foster family until April 2017.

CONTEXT [ 5 ] The child was visiting her mother, on a regular basis, on weekends up until the worker discovered, on May 12 th , 2016, that the mother had signed an undertaking prohibiting contacts between mother and child unless supervised. The mother disclosed that she was unaware of these conditions and explained that the document that she had signed was in French and therefore that she did not know what it was. [ 6 ] As the contacts between the child and her mother were going well and as it was felt that it was in the best interest for the child to

have ongoing contacts with her mother, the worker provided the mother with a letter, on May 13 th , 2016, supporting a change of conditions so that unsupervised weekend contacts could take place. [ 7 ] It is only on August 24 th , 2016, that the conditions were finally modified. The mother explains that her lawyer kept postponing the case. It is hard to understand why no other steps were taken to speed up the process.

It would have been in the best interest of the child to continue to have extended contacts with her mother to favour reintegration. [ 8 ] From May 13 th until June 23 rd , 2016, supervised visits between the child and her mother took place. It was observed that the mother was appropriate and caring with the child. [ 9 ] From June 25 th until August 30 th , 2016, the child traveled to Grenada to spend the summer with her grandmother, aunt and half- sister. [ 10 ] The evidence reveals that it was never part of the intervention plan to have the child entrusted to the maternal grandmother in Grenada.

Despite the court order rendered, despite the Law (section 62 (4) of the Youth Protection Act), the Director has authorized the child to travel to Grenada for more than two months. [ 11 ] During the absence of the child, no physical contacts took place between the child and her mother and the reintegration was stalled. In addition, because the child was to travel to Grenada for the whole summer, an educator was not requested to support the child's reintegration home.

The worker explains that the child was already followed from an educator from the Centre A and that it was deemed more appropriate to favour the involvement of that educator who had a good rapport with the child. [ 12 ] The worker informs the Court that a request was made in order to have the educator from the centre A to support the reintegration process.

That request was denied in May 2016. [ 13 ] On November 1 st , the worker informs the Court that the family is on a waiting list to receive the services from an educator who could support the reintegration process. [ 14 ] The mother attended a program offered by the A Families Agency.

Although the mother was hesitant to attend the sessions at first, she reported that she did benefit from the program and that she was eager to register for the follow-up program. [ 15 ] On November 1 st , 2016, it is unclear if the follow-up program will be offered on an individual or group basis, but it seems that group or not, the mother could receive the services on an individual basis. [ 16 ] The entrustment of a child in foster care remains an exceptional measure and all efforts have to be made, in a timely fashion, to help and support the parent to put an end to the situation that led to the involvement of the Director. [ 17 ] Allowing the child to spend the whole summer with her grandparent and, as a consequence, not requesting that the services of an educator be provided to the family in order to start the reintegration process are contrary to the general principles of the Law.

The services needed were not provided to the family in a timely fashion in order to allow the child to be reintegrated home as originally planned. [ 18 ] Extra steps should have been taken to ensure that the child could continue to benefit from unsupervised access to her mother.

Supervised contacts from May to June and the absence of physical contacts during the whole summer were not sufficient to favour reintegration. [ 19 ] In addition, if it is deemed necessary for the mother to attend the follow-up program offered by the A Families Agency and if the program can be offered on an individual basis, the Director has to be more proactive in making things happen.

The reintegration process cannot depend on the availability of the group program that is not even scheduled yet. [ 20 ] The Court comes to the conclusion that, despite the good intentions, the services were not provided in order to help the child reintegrate her mother's care as soon as possible. It is unacceptable that six months after the initial court order was rendered, the Director requests again that the child be fostered in a foster family for a period of six months.

The mother is said to be motivated to have the child returned to her care on a fulltime basis and all decisions should be made and services provided in order to achieve that goal. [ 21 ] The Court invites the Director to duly report the fact that the court order was not respected and permission was unduly granted for the child to travel to Grenada (incident/accident report). [ 22 ] Under the circumstances, the Court has no other choice but to come to the conclusion that neither the child nor the mother are ready for the child's reintegration home and therefore, the child will have to remain in foster care.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] 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: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child remain in foster care until at the latest April 13th, 2017; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her mother for a period of one (1) year, including the

services of an educator; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgement by any peace officer if need be; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the decision be brought to the personal attention of the Director of Youth Protection. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the children Date of hearing : November 1st, 2016