2012 QCCQ 16072, 2012 QCCQ 16072

Protection de la jeunesse — 124996 2012 QCCQ 16072 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 605-41-000716-118 DATE: May 8, 2012 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. IN THE MATTER OF: X, born [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , human relations officer, practising her profession at the Centre de jeunesse A, having a place of business [...], Town A, District A, province of Québec Petitioner and A , domiciled and residing [...], Town A, District A, province of Québec Mother JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q., c.

P-34.1) I – INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] An application for protection pursuant to sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act [1] was referred to the Court concerning the situation of the child X, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] The mother of the child attended the hearing and was represented by Mtre. Tania Bélanger. The child was represented by Mtre. Caroline Veillette Jackson. The mother admitted virtually all of the allegations in the application. She did not contest that her child’s security and development could be declared in danger. [ 3 ] The child’s mother was 15 years old when she gave birth to her daughter.

The mother was entrusted to the care of a foster family in anticipation of giving birth. Prior to that, the adolescent had been placed in a rehabilitation centre between September 7 and October

27, 2011. [ 4 ] The child was born on [...], 2011, and no father is declared on her act of birth. During her pregnancy and before her placement, the mother was living at the home of the parents of the child’s biological father, B.

The mother and the biological father had a conflictual relationship marked by the father’s physical and verbal violence. [ 5 ] On November 14, 2011, the mother and the petitioner entered into a provisional agreement that the child X would be entrusted to the care of the same foster family as the mother. [ 6 ] Because of the mother’s young age and her own personal difficulties, which required the youth protection authorities to intervene, the Court is of the opinion that the child’s security and development should be declared in danger pursuant to

section 38 (b) (2), i.e. there is a serious risk that the child’s basic needs are not being met. [ 7 ] The child has been placed since birth in the same foster family as her mother. The foster family’s mandate was to supervise the mother in caring for her baby.

The mother showed good parenting skills and the emotional bond between her and her baby is very positive. [ 8 ] On December 1, 2011, following the hearing of the application, the Court provisionally entrusted the care of the mother and the child X to C, a person who is important to the mother, as she housed the mother while she was in school. [ 9 ] On December 9, 2011, less than 10 days later, the applicant filed an application for modification of the provisional order. After arriving in the community of Town B, the mother went out every evening and left her baby in the care of Ms.

C. [ 10 ] During that period, the child’s biological father went to Ms. C’s home while very drunk and asked to see the child. [ 11 ] The mother did not abide by the rules or the supervision laid down by Ms. C. That situation risked jeopardizing the development of the bond between the mother and the child, since the mother delegated more and more of her responsibilities to Ms. C. [ 12 ] On December 7, 2011, an immediate protection measure was applied and the mother and the child returned to the foster family.

On December 9, 2011, a provisional order was issued to maintain the mother and the child in the foster family. [ 13 ] The evidence shows that the mother takes good care of her child when she is with the foster family. She is supervised in the foster environment and sees to the care of her child by herself. The mother is attentive to the needs of her child, and the bond between them is positive. [ 14 ] The child is going through a crucial period in her development. The foster family provides a stable environment for the mother and her child.

That environment is the most conducive to meeting the child’s needs and enabling the mother to develop her skills in order to assume her parental responsibilities. The objective is also to develop the mother’s autonomy so that she can eventually live with her child without being supervised by an adult. [ 15 ] In addition, bear in mind the mother’s young age and her own needs. The foster family she is now living with is in Town A. She has little social contact, apart from that with her foster parents.

She is in a French-speaking environment, whereas the mother expresses herself in English and Cree. [ 16 ] In that context, the Court believes it is important to allow extended stays, in accordance with

section 62 of the Youth Protection Act , with C or at any other location that could, after being assessed, meet the needs of the child and her mother. Such outings will enable the mother to preserve her bonds with her community and her culture.

[ 17 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 18 ] ALLOWS the present application; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are in danger; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to a foster family for a period of six (6) months; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the child be placed in the same foster family as her mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the child and her mother with aid, counselling and assistance for a period of twelve (12) months; [ 23 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate in applying this order, if required by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order.

RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. Mtre. Caroline Veillette Jackson For the child Mtre. Tania Bélanger For the mother Mtre. Marie-Michèle Boulanger For the petitioner Date of hearing: Town A, February 17, 2012 [1] R.S.Q., c. P-34.1.