2019 QCCQ 16802, 2019 QCCQ 16802

Protection de la jeunesse — 195414 2019 QCCQ 16802 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-033099-177 DATE : May 2, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2018 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on February 5, 2018, ordering the foster care placement of the child along with other measures for nine months. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Applicant alleges that the parents’ situation has not evolved and that the issues previously identified (drug consumption, volatile relationship, instability) remain a concern.

Consequently, a reintegration plan to either of the parents’ care is unrealistic. [ 3 ] Considering that the child is currently in a transition foster home, the Director is asking that the child be entrusted to the proximity foster family of the maternal grandparents who reside in a small village in Town A, Northern Québec, for nine months. The purpose is to lay the groundwork for a long term plan given the expiration of the delays at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 4 ] The parents both admit the allegations regarding the continued state of endangerment and acknowledge that they are not in a position to resume the care of the child. [ 5 ] The father, however, proposes that the child be entrusted to family acquaintances who have been positively assessed and who reside in Town B. [ 6 ] The mother’s position on the measures has changed during the course of the hearing.

She initially supported the Director’s position, then supported the father’s proposal and, by the end of the hearing, returned to her initial position supporting placement with the maternal grandparents. [ 7 ] The attorney for the child supports the Director’s position as a result of the mother’s expressed intent to return to Northern Québec. The Situation [ 8 ] The father initially participated in a ten day inpatient treatment for his consumption issues but failed to adhere to the outpatient follow-up. His file has since been closed as a result of inactivity.

He has admitted to relapses regarding his consumption and does not report to random drug testing when requested to do so. [ 9 ] His collaboration with the social follow-up has been difficult and sporadic. Communication with the worker is practically non-

existent at this time. Consequently, the worker has little information regarding his personal situation. It should be noted that the father did not testify at the hearing. [ 10 ] Contact between the child and the father has been inconsistent although lately, he has been more reliable regarding the scheduled visits. [ 11 ] The mother’s situation is similar. She has failed to commit to any particular service or program pertaining to her drug consumption despite various options available to her.

She, like the father, has also been inconsistent with visits but is improving lately as well. [ 12 ] The mother’s situation has been unstable and the worker is not always informed of her place of residence. The mother is regularly torn as to whether or not to return to Northern Québec, as demonstrated by her change of position throughout the hearing. [ 13 ] The parents’ relationship remains ambiguous.

Although the mother states that they are no longer together, they have recurrently resumed their relationship after a breakup. [ 14 ] The worker continues to observe situations between the parents that cause her concern. In her opinion, the father attempts to exercise a certain unhealthy control over the mother, for example, by telling her not to cooperate with social services. This dynamic in their relationship is not new [1] .

Moreover, the mother has confirmed that she sometimes fears the father’s reaction to certain situations and consequently refrains from discussing subjects of contention [2] . [ 15 ] The child is doing well in placement and is reaching all of her developmental milestones. She has regular visits with the paternal grandmother with whom she has developed a close attachment. On the other hand, it has been made clear that she cannot remain in her current placement given the foster family’s status as a transition home. [ 16 ] Visits with the parents, either together or individually, are generally positive.

The mother shows much affection towards her daughter, as does the father. [ 17 ] The evidence confirms that the child’s situation continues to be endangered for the reasons initially declared, namely, psychological ill-treatment and a serious risk of negligence. The parents acknowledge that they have failed to seriously address any of their issues and concede that the child cannot return to their care.

The Measures [ 18 ] Considering the need to prepare a long-term plan, the Director is proposing that the child be placed with the maternal grandparents. [ 19 ] The father objects to this recommendation, essentially, for two reasons. First, he would necessarily lose regular access to his daughter if she were to be moved to Northern Québec.

Second, the child would no longer benefit from the relationship that she has developed with the maternal grandmother, who, despite not being able to assume her care full time, is fully invested in their relationship. [ 20 ] Rather, he proposes that the child be entrusted to C and D. The couple was introduced to the father through the paternal aunt who has known them for several years. Knowing that they were looking to foster a child, the maternal aunt solicited their interest in her niece. They have since met with the child and the father on several occasions for that purpose. [ 21 ] Mr. C and Mr.

D were initially proposed as a proximity foster family until the court questioned its authority to designate a proximity foster family not chosen by the Director. This legal issue became moot when the couple accepted to have the child entrusted to them directly, without a recognition of their foster family status. [ 22 ] There is no issue regarding the quality of the home proposed by the father. Both gentlemen have been positively assessed and all parties recognize that they are more than qualified to assume the responsibility of a child.

They have also testified to their willingness to commit to a long term project as well as to their capacity to teach the child about her […] culture. [ 23 ] The maternal grandparents have also been positively assessed and can offer a quality home to the child. Although there was concern regarding the presence of their son, E, in the home as a result of his criminal history, that issue has since been resolved.

According to the grandparents, he will be moving to his aunt’s home and any contact with the child would be in conformity with a safety plan developed by the Director. [ 24 ] The grandparents have seen their granddaughter approximately five times since her birth. The grandfather testifies that they made every attempt to involve themselves more fully in her life from the start but were hampered by administrative obstacles. [ 25 ] During his testimony, the grandfather emphasises the importance of teaching the child about her […] culture while showing equal sensitivity to preserving her Québecois heritage.

He adds that in their village, the child would have access to a large extended maternal family, including many cousins. [ 26 ] Questioned about contact with the paternal family, he readily commits to bringing the child to Town B at least four times a year and points out that long distance communication is not a problem, considering today’s technology. It should be noted as well that the child would be schooled in French. [ 27 ] The mother initially testifies that she intends to remain in Town B and consequently, supports the father’s position in order to maintain access to her child.

At the continuation of the hearing some time later, the mother testifies a second time to announce a change in her position. [ 28 ] She explains that, after reflection, she has decided to return to Town A. She acknowledges that she has stagnated in Town B

where she has no family and no support. She now firmly believes that she needs to return to her roots where she would have access to a healing centre in her […] community as well as the support of her family. [ 29 ] Regarding the child’s interest specifically, she describes the grandparents’ home in a way that denotes a lifestyle rich in cultural identity and family values.

She expresses a desire to have the child learn their […] language along with the many traditions related to their deeply rooted respect for the land. [ 30 ] The mother is sensitive to the potential impact of the child’s move on the father and the paternal grandmother. Nevertheless, she is convinced that her best option to get her own life back on track, in the hope of regaining custody of the child, is to return home. Analysis and Conclusion [ 31 ] Although the family proposed by the father is without doubt a quality resource, there is no evidence of a significant bond with the child.

While the same can be said about the maternal grandparents, they remain family, a distinction of fundamental importance. [ 32 ] The bond between the child and the paternal grandmother is certainly a consideration. However, the regular visitation that she is able to offer cannot outweigh the importance of daily care within the child’s extended family. [ 33 ] The mother’s plan to return home is clearly fragile. Nevertheless, her desire to do so in order to get the help that she so clearly needs, appears sincere and serves the child’s best interest.

Moreover, the child is entitled to a measure that encourages her exposure to the cultural identity that she has inherited through her maternal family. [ 34 ] After considering all of the evidence, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest. [ 35 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 36 ] THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster home of the maternal grandparents to the exclusion of the maternal uncle E; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the maternal grandparents follow and respect the safety plan as agreed upon with […] Health Centre A; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the DYP; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a minimum of three direct contacts with the child be offered to the father; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her paternal grandmother, F, be encouraged and determined by the DYP; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents address their personal issues; [ 45 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to exchange and obtain information from all service providers; [ 46 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign for all travel, medical and educational consents if the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the DYP on their situation and the measures taken to correct the situation; [ 48 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child will remain in her current foster family for a period of two weeks to allow the transition to the foster family of the maternal grandparents; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 50 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

SIGNED IN TOWN B On May 21, 2019 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q . Me Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the D.Y.P.

Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the child Me Lilian Stah Attorney for the mother Me Nathalie Croteau Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: February, 05. March, 28 and May 2, 2019