2012 QCCQ 8739, 2012 QCCQ 8739

Protection de la jeunesse — 122474 2012 QCCQ 8739 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000457-101 DATE: 29 février 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born […] , 1998 MRS.

SOCIAL WORKER 1 , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection at Centre de Jeunesse A, having a place of business […] at city A, district A Applicant and A, domiciled and residing […] , city B district A Mother and B, domiciled and residing […] , city C, Province A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sections 95 (1) (2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mrs SOCIAL WORKER 1 duly authorized by the director of youth protection of the Centre de Jeunesse A asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on February 24, 2011 concerning the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father and the mother are absent.

The mother is represented by Me Marc Ouimette who asks the Court to postpone the hearing. Me Ouimette explains to the Court that he has received this morning a call from his client. She was disturbed and was talking nonsense. She said she did not sleep for days. One of her friends passed away recently and she did not cope well with that situation. She admitted that she had a lift to come to Court but was not feeling well enough to do so. [ 3 ] The attorneys for the applicant and for the child object strongly to that motion. [ 4 ] On December 6, 2011, Judge Marc E.

Grimard postponed the hearing to February 7, 2012 at the mother’s request. She was not represented because her lawyer was unavailable that week. The hearing was adjourned for that reason. [ 5 ] On October 20, 2011, the mother was absent at the hearing even if she was duly served. The hearing was held in her absence. [ 6 ] After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court dismisses the mother’s motion. Me Ouimette does not offer serious reasons to grant a postponement. The provisional measures apply for two months and the best interest of the child must prevail.

The hearing will be held in the absence of the mother. [ 7 ] The father is also absent. The bailiff attempted to serve the father unsuccessfully. The father is untraceable. He is not involved in his child’s life and was never present in Court. The Court will proceed in his absence. [ 8 ] The applicant asks the Court a prolongation of the measures for another period of six months.

The applicant asks the Court to revise its decision because the mother’s personal situation does not improved at all and the child appears disturbed after contacts with her mother. [ 9 ] Me Peggy Warolin, for the child, admits the facts and agrees with the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] Since the last Court's order the mother has not seeks help regarding her drug consumption and her mental health issues. In fact, the mother’s mental health deteriorated which has lead to fewer contacts between her and her child. [ 11 ] The contacts with the mother are difficult.

According to Mrs [social worker 1] testimony, the mother is often intoxicated when she calls the social workers. Sometimes she is totally disorganised, stressed out and confused. She does not collaborate with the service givers and has to change workers on few occasions. [ 12 ] The child has been showing behavioural problems at school. She was answering back to the teachers, refusing to comply, swearing and showing an overall disrespect with the authority. She was getting into arguments with her peers.

[ 13 ] During summer time, she has improved on some levels such as social skills, behaviour and respecting authority. The foster family reports that she is now hanging around with peers. She respects the curfew and she is helpful in the house. She has developed a stronger bond with the foster family. [ 14 ] The child shows symptoms of mental health issues. The contacts between her and her mother have an impact on her perception of reality and her trust towards adults. Many times the child appeared to be disturbed after contacts with her mother.

The mother refuses to have her child evaluated by a psychologist. [ 15 ] The relationship between the mother and the child is weakening which is due to the lack of improvement of the mother’s situation. The mother is supposed to have weekly visits of 3 hours and phone contacts since the last Court in February 2011. In the beginning, the visits went well and it started to deteriorate in June. Some of the visits had to be cancelled because of the mother swearing and talking against people in her community when she had her daughter for visits.

Some times there were none if the caseworker considered that the mother was intoxicated or in a bad condition mentally to see her daughter. Although, when the mother is in a good condition physically and mentally, it is important for the child to maintain the visits. [ 16 ] The mother admits to still using drugs on a daily basis. She stopped the follow-up with the Social worker 2 in regards to her consumption. She also refused all the services offered to her concerning her mental health issues and her drug and alcohol addiction. She is not able to perceive the reality of the situation clearly.

She is focused on her own past and not able to understand the needs of her daughter. [ 17 ] Although, the child has made some progress in her foster home, she is still going through difficulties like behaviour problems and symptom of mental health issues. Nonetheless, she is making plans for the next school year and she is motivated and wants to improve [ 18 ] The foster family has created a healthy bond with the child and is ready to invest with her long term.

The child is happy in the foster family and enjoys participating in the family's activities. [ 19 ] After reviewing all the evidence and considering the admissions made by the child's lawyer, the Court is of the opinion that the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection for the child are in her best interest. The child agrees with the measures and wishes to stay in the foster family where she is happy.

It is also in the child's best interest to maintain the contacts between her and her mother when she is in an appropriate mental and physical condition. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 22 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X born […] , 1998, are still compromised. [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family for a period of 6 months. [ 24 ] Orders that the contacts and visits between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, the frequency and the modalities, with the presence of a third party if judged necessary according of the mother's condition. [ 25 ] Orders the Director of Youth Protection to submit the child to a psychological evaluation. [ 26 ] Orders that the child receives specific health care and health services specifically for her mental health issues. [ 27 ] Maintains all other measures that were ordered on October 20, 2011 and that are still pertinent. [ 28 ] Orders that the mother and the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered. [ 29 ] Orders that aid counselling and assistance be provided by the Director of Youth Protection to the child and her mother for a period of 6 months. [ 30 ] ORDERS that all professionals working with the child or the mother exchange information with the Director of Youth Protection regarding the child’s situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this enactment __________________________________ Josée bélanger j.c.q .

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the child Me Marc Ouimette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: February 7, 2012