2011 QCCQ 17016, 2011 QCCQ 17016

Protection de la jeunesse — 116436 2011 QCCQ 17016 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 635-41-000428-117 DATE: October 24, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2008 [INTEVRENANT 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in town A Applicant -and- A , residing and domiciled in town B, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands to the Court to declare the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2008, in danger. [ 2 ] Both parents are absent. The child is represented. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue considering the position of the parents.

Indeed, the father wrote a letter stating that he would not present himself in court and that he was in agreement with the recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection. As for the mother, her position is the same and she did not present herself at the airport, where a prepaid ticket had been issued for her. The same pattern took place, at the last court hearing. [ 4 ] The Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandmother and her spouse, until she reaches the age of majority.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 5 ] The child has been, since birth, living with the maternal grandmother and her husband. At the beginning, the mother was also living there with the child and then left. [ 6 ] Presently, the mother lives in town C and it is very difficult to enter into contact with her, considering she has no stable domicile. The last known address where she was is known as a "crack house" in town C. Then the social worker was referred to another address and upon verification, she was advised that the mother and her boyfriend had departed.

[ 7 ] The mother is extremely unstable and experiences serious problems linked to alcohol and drug abuse. She was admitted to A Centre in May 2011, but did not complete the therapy and left. Her daughter had been integrated with her but considering the decision of the mother to leave the centre, the child was fostered in an emergency foster family, before being reintegrated with the grandmother. Since then, the contacts between the mother and the members of her family are made by telephone.

The social worker also contacts the mother by telephone, when possible. [ 8 ] The mother has had a very difficult life as a child and as an adult. She found the therapy difficult and the structure impossible to respect. She is incapable of reaching stability and harmony. Consequently, she is not in a position to provide stability of life conditions and continuity in care, to her daughter. [ 9 ] It has been the situation since the child's birth, except for short periods. [ 10 ] The father is not involved in the life of his daughter and is also unstable. Domestic violence was present when he lived with the mother.

He has clearly expressed that he will not involved himself in the child's life. [ 11 ] The evidence tendered convinces the Court that the security and development of the child, are in danger, more specifically under paragraphs a),

b) and

c) of

section 38 of the Law. IV - MEASURES APPLICABLES [ 12 ] The evidence tendered consists of the testimonies of the social worker and the maternal grandparents. Also tendered as documentary evidence, the evaluation report of the social worker. [ 13 ] The maternal grandmother is interested, available and capable. She loves her granddaughter and wants to continue on a long- term basis to provide care, stability and love.

The child considers her grandparents as her parents. [ 14 ] For most of her life, the child has been living with her grandparents and consequently, the recommendation made by the Director of Youth Protection would not modify her conditions of living. [ 15 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the recommendation respects the rights of the child and is in her best interest. At the present time, it is impossible to foresee if the mother will regain her parental capacities and exercise her responsibilities in the future.

It will always be possible to review the situation, if the case. [ 16 ] Access, visitation rights and contacts between the parents and the child are maintained. With the supervision by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 17 ] The evidence further convinces the Court of the necessity to withdraw the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the parents.

Indeed, the whereabouts of the mother are usually unknown and the father is not involved. [ 18 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 20 ] DECLARE the security and development of the child in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) entrusts the child to the maternal grandparents, until the age of majority;

b) that a person working for an establishment or organism provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, the grandparents and the mother; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES personal relations between the child and the biological parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access and visitation rights between the parents and the child, be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of the following rights of the parental authorities from the parents: - Authorisation for medical services or health services; - Authorisation for school activities and travelling activities; - Including authorisation and signature for passport; [ 25 ] ENTRUTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court.

__________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for child Me Robert-André Adam Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Date of hearing: October 4, 2011