2015 QCCQ 12123, 2015 QCCQ 12123

Protection de la jeunesse — 153368 2015 QCCQ 12123 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028295-145 Date: May 13, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 13, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on December 16, 2014, whereby the now two year-old child, X , was entrusted to her father’s uncle, Mr. C, and his spouse, Ms. D, with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for revision dated March 19, 2015, are as follows: 3.1. Mr. C and Ms.

D were approved as a foster family on February 1 st , 2015; 3.2. on March 11 th , 2015, a signalement was received concerning physical abuse; 3.3. the child has been in daycare for approximately one (1) month and new bruises were regularly observed by the daycare staff; 3.4. the daycare staff reported that the child had trouble lying down because she was in pain; 3.5. on March 11 th , 2015, immediate protective measures were applied and the child was placed into another foster home; 3.6. on March 11 th , 2015, the youth protection worker observed that the child had a large bruise on her right leg but did not observe any other bruises on her body; 3.7. on March 12 th , 2015, Ms.

D denied that she ever physically abused the child but explained that the child fell frequently off her bed and that the bruise might have been caused by this; 3.8. on March 12 th , 2015, Mr. C also denied that he ever physically abused the child and explained that the child fell off her bed all the time and that the bruise might have been caused by this; 3.9. the child sleeps in a double bed with no barriers;

3.10. the only thing that Ms. D and Mr. C did to prevent the child from hurting herself was to move her bed away from the heater so that she would not fall on it; 3.11. Ms. D and Mr. C reported that they did not observe any bruise on the child; 3.12. Ms. D and Mr. C never took the child to the clinic even though she kept falling from her bed; 3.13. on March 13 th , 2015, the Honourable Dominique Wilhelmy rendered a judgment under

section 47 of the Youth Protection Act ; 3.14. on March 16 th , 2015, the youth protection worker took the child to the pediatrician; 3.15. on March 16 th , 2015, the pediatrician did not observe any bruise on the child or any sign of physical abuse; 3.16. however, the pediatrician reported that the child was underweight and made a referral to the occupational therapist as the child requires further stimulation to assist with her speech; 3.17. since the child was placed into a new foster home on March 11 th , 2015, she speaks much more, she appears more confident and less anxious; 3.18. Ms. D, Mr.

C and the mother, during her visits, have not made efforts to help the child speak; 3.19. the child appeared very sad in the home of Ms. D and Mr. C; 3.20. Ms. D and Mr. C did not have appropriate expectations about the child’s behaviour and were not fully committed to the child; 3.21. the father resides in City A and is not involved with the child; 3.22. the mother has visits with the child on a weekly basis; 3.23. the mother is still not in a position to have the child returned to her care; 3.24. given the lack of supervision and stimulation of the child in the home of Mr. C and Ms.

D and that the mother is not in a position to have the child return to her care, the child has to be placed into another foster home (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a foster family, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Morin, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, who still lives in City A could not attend the hearing, but also expressed his consent to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Saad, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 and D-2 as evidence: D-1: Evaluation of signalement, completed by [Social Worker 2], dated March 24, 2015; D-2: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated May 6, 2015. [ 9 ] In

summary, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that the child cannot remain with her extended family for the alleged reasons, although initially there did not appear to be any reason to fear for her safety in their care. [ 10 ] However, since the child’s placement in foster care, remarkable differences have been observed: Since Neiva has been placed into the emergency foster home of Ms. E, she has been observed by the undersigned and educator to be more animated, happy, more confident, playful, and will engage in age appropriate behaviors.

Within the first week in her new foster home, she began making gains in language acquisition speaking 2-3 word sentences. X continues to attend her daycare daily except on the day she has a visit with her mother. X is benefiting tremendously from the affection and attention she is receiving from the foster mother. Many of the delays and behavioral observations noted in the pervious (sic) home have subsided. Ms. E spends time with X encouraging age appropriate independence such as brushing her teeth on her own; something which she refused to do previously. Ms.

E reports no issues with the daycare and stated that X loves it there. Dropping her off and picking her up has gone smoothly whereas in the past X would react. Ms. E reports no tantrums as previously noted by the foster parents.

X has reportedly gone from waking up several times a night crying/whimpering to more restful sleep patterns. [2] [ 11 ] As for the mother, she has been making sustained efforts to be both more present and more consistent in her daughter’s life: […] she now contacts her daughter daily and sees her 3 times a week for a period of up to 4 hours where visits are unsupervised. [3] [ 12 ] Over the course of the following months, she will need to demonstrate her ability to fulfill her daughter’s needs on a full-time basis if she hopes to have her daughter returned to her care: Ms.

A will need to demonstrate the following in order to have X in her full-time care: increasing her contacts, fully collaborate with educator assigned, balance the needs of her daughter with her own need for financial stability, and develop a support network including

preapproved babysitters (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 13 ] The mother must understand the urgency to become fully prepared for her daughter’s return as her child cannot live indefinitely under uncertain conditions: The six month plan will allow Ms. A to face the realities of caring for her child full-time and should she decide that she is unable to do so; Ms. A would continue to be encouraged to play an important role in X’s life as X adores her mother very much.

Concurrently, the agency is searching for a foster home for X that can meet her long term needs given that X’s maximum duration of placement will be reached on May 27, 2015. [4] [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 18 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is currently entrusted and will remain entrusted for the duration of the order to the foster family of Ms.

E in whose care the child appears to be thriving; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that such contacts occur four times per week for a duration of up to four hours and that such contacts will gradually be increased following the mother’s steps to become more and more involved and available to her child; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child is not exposed to any illegal activities while in the care; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the child Me Marc Morin Attorney for the mother TD/vl