2020 QCCQ 5106, 2020 QCCQ 5106

Protection de la jeunesse — 204740 2020 QCCQ 5106 JD3388 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] «Youth division»

N° : 755-41-003115-196 DATE : July 10, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONORABLE CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A , Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2019 Child -and- A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T Section 95 (1) (2) of 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 contrevenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine. [Section 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with an Application for a revision and a prolongation of a Court Decision, according to section 95 (1) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X, born on [...], 2019. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the child necessitates the revision and prolongation of the Court Order rendered on July 9, 2019, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 4 of the Application. [ 3 ] The Director recommends, as key measures, that the child remains in her foster family and that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and in absence of agreement between the parties that they take place every three (3) weeks.

A social follow up is also suggested by the Director for a period of one (1) year. Situation and Analysis [ 4 ] The child remains entrusted to the same foster family since the last court order, where she evolves positively. [ 5 ] The child starts daycare on March 2020. After a short interruption because of the COVID-19, the child now attends daycare

twice a week. [ 6 ] The child benefits from supervised contacts with her mother at a frequency of two (2) times per week at first but now reduced at a frequency of one (1) time per week for an hour and a half. [ 7 ] Although the mother denies this fact, evidence show that she still has difficulties decoding the child’s needs and interventions are necessary to ensure the safety of the child. [ 8 ] Because of the mother’s difficulties to meet the needs of the child and because of her busy work schedule, contacts between the child and the mother could not be increased. [ 9 ] The child was reacting to the presence of the mother during the visits at first.

These reactions no longer exist, but the child still does not seek for contacts with her mother during the visits. [ 10 ] On the other hand, a significant bond exists between the child and her foster family. [ 11 ] Although the mother receives the services of an educator during the visits to improve her parenting skills, her capacity to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is danger is not demonstrated. [ 12 ] On the contrary, the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency of the facts reported, are quite similar to the situation of the mother’s oldest daughter, for which the Director is involved. [ 13 ] Questioned as to why the Director wants to reduce the contacts between the child and the mother, the social worker testified that they are no longer working towards a return of the child to the mother.

She added that her clinical opinion is to the effect that now, «the contacts between the child and the mother respond more to the mother’s need than to the child’s need» [1] [ 14 ] The Director suggests to gradually reduce the contacts between the mother and the child for the above reasons. [ 15 ] Of course, if the child responds positively to the contacts and wants to create a bond with her mother, the contacts could be increased.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [17] GRANTS the application ; [18] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [19] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 9th, 2019; [20] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [21] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and in absence of agreement between the parties that they take place every three weeks; [22] TAKES ACT that the contacts between the child and her mother will occur once a week for a few weeks and gradually reduce to once every two (2) weeks and eventually once every three (3) weeks; [23] ORDERS that the mother of the child takes an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [24] ORDERS that the person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family ; [25] ORDERS that the child’s mother report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform them of her current situation ; [26] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment ; [27] THE WHOLE for a period of one (1) year. ________________________________ CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q. M e Mélissa Labine Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Valérie Lavigne Attorney for the mother

M e Gail Rollo Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 10, 2020 Date of the signature: September 9, 2020