2012 QCCQ 15594, 2012 QCCQ 15594

Protection de la jeunesse — 123269 2012 QCCQ 15594 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NO.: 640-41-001356-119 DATE: June 1, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born [...], 2010 MS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., Quebec, district A Petitioner and MS.

A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C. is asking the Court to review the decision rendered on March 29, 2011 by the Honourable Jean-Pierre Gervais concerning X, born [...], 2010. Judge Gervais declared the security and development of the child endangered and ordered his placement in a foster family for one year.

Now, the petitioner is asking for the child's placement until his majority. [ 2 ] The child is represented by Me Yan Massé. The mother is absent at the hearing although she was duly served. She informed the Social Worker she would not attend the Court session. She refused a prepaid ticket on the day before the hearing. She refused the same offer again this morning. Considering such evidence, the Court agrees to proceed in her absence. Me Robert-André is representing the petitioner. Later that day, the mother came to Court, but the judgment was already rendered.

The motives and the decision were given to her by the Court. [ 3 ] Evidence for all the allegations is based on the testimonies of the [Social Worker 1] and Ms. [Social Worker 2], the foster mother, Ms. B, the Review Report and the Occurrence Report. [ 4 ] It is proven out of the balance of probabilities that the mother's situation remains the same. She still abuses alcohol and has not sought any help regarding that problem. The mother does not offer good collaboration with the Social Worker. She is often rude and aggressive during meetings. She does not visit her son regularly. She has emotional problems.

She lives with her mother and the latter disagrees with the orientation she is taking with her son. The mother has another child that she previously gave up for adoption. She acknowledges that sometimes she is not able to assume X, but her mother does not accept that. Feeling she is not getting her mother’s support, Ms. A assaulted her in the presence of X on the child’s last visit. [ 5 ] The mother shows no motivation for solving her problems even if she attached to her child. Many different approaches were attempted with the mother without success. Her collaboration decreased over the months.

She does not assume any responsibility for her present situation. She places responsibility on everybody else but herself. She is unstable emotionally and cannot, in such conditions, assume her child. [ 6 ] As of March, the mother offered better collaboration with the Social Worker. She visited her son regularly and expressed her concerns regarding her inability to change her lifestyle and to remain sober. She said she wanted to keep her son and did not want to give him up, but she felt he would be better off with the foster family rather than taking chances with her. She also spoke with the foster mother.

Unfortunately, a few days later, the above-mentioned fight between the mother and the grandmother occurred in the presence of X. As the mother was arrested, X was taken back to daycare earlier than expected. [ 7 ] Concerning X's evolution, Ms. B has been fostering the child since May 2011, and after the first three months of integration difficulties, everything is now going very well. He is in good health and is developing normally. Furthermore, an emotional bond has been created between X and his foster mother.

[ 8 ] Before living at Ms. B’s home, the child was placed in two foster families. They resigned because the child was too demanding and Ms. A was difficult to deal with. [ 9 ] Ms. B and her partner are attached to the child and may provide the child a secure, stable and caring environment. The child attends the daycare centre in Town A. The foster mother is able to cope with the mothers' interventions, promotes contacts and is ready to ensure that the child learns about his Inuit culture. [ 10 ] Considering the evidence and

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , [ 11 ] THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 14 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family until the age of majority and ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms.

B; [ 15 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise any access of the mother to her child X as to the terms and conditions; [ 16 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the mother and the child during the present judgment; [ 17 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present Court order; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, Attorney for the petitioner Me Yan Massé, Attorney for the child Date of hearing: April 3, 2012