2018 QCCQ 14171, 2018 QCCQ 14171

Protection de la jeunesse — 184622 2018 QCCQ 14171 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 550-41-002291-167 DATE: June 19, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE VALMONT BEAULIEU, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LES CENTRES JEUNESSE A Petitioner (Plaintiff) and X Child A In he capacity as mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 75, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On April 28, 2017, Justice Marie Pratte rendered a decision under

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act to the effect that the child be entrusted to a foster family until December 10, 2017 and be gradually reintegrated into the mother’s environment during the last two months of the placement measure. [ 2 ] At the hearing, was deposited the Report to the Québec Court dated of January 15, 2018 by Ms.

Marie-Lou Poirier (D-4). [ 3 ] The Youth Protection Director (the Director), is involved with X’s family for many years for reoccurring unresolved previous cases of neglect, untreated mental health issues, addiction and instability. [ 4 ] In X’s case, the situation has been ongoing since October 2011. [ 5 ] Since her young age, she has been placed in a lot of instability to which she has been exposed in the past (traumas in regard of placement and rupture of bonds). [ 6 ] X has spent 36 months out of her mother’s care on a total of 78 months of life. [ 7 ] In this present situation, it is important for the Court to consider the personal characteristics of Mrs.

A.

The Mother’s background, personal difficulties, instability, anxiety, lack of recognition are indicated to be analyzed. [ 8 ] This mother was given ample opportunities to change her lifestyle but she demonstrated that she could not follow-up or focus on what needed to be don, so she could have the chance one day to have her daughter back into her care on a daily basis. [ 9 ] There is no safety net around this family, given that the mother has a very small social network. [ 10 ] Because of her anxiety she is very isolated and cannot depend on many people to help her. [ 11 ] X deserves to develop in an environment that will give her the chance to be a child of her age, without having to be exposed or having to deal with “adult related situation”. [ 12 ] The child needs stabilized permanency.

She needs a predictable, coherent, reassuring, safe and stimulating home environment.

[ 13 ] The actual foster family is providing this type of life. [ 14 ] Moreover the social worker is able to see that X tends to act like a 2-year-old rather than a 5-year-old in the presence of her mother. [ 15 ] It also seems difficult for her to apply the recommendations regarding the autonomy of her daughter. [ 16 ] The mother does not encourage her to develop a conversation. [ 17 ] The court supports the opinion of Mrs. Poirier written in her report: “There is a history of asking for support but not engaging afterward.

The request for services seems to come when there is a moment of crisis/pressures from our services. During the intervention with DYP, the mother has started many follow up but was never able to complete them. This period of time has been characterized by an absence of recognition, recurrent denial, chronicity of the problems. It is important to understand that it is not only regarding the services that the mobilization of the mother has been difficult but also in relation to the state of her housing.

According to us, progress is not possible without a minimum of recognition and of motivation which is necessary in order to make significant changes.” FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT : [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still compromised as per

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family for a period of six (6) months; [ 21 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on April 28, 2017; [ 22 ] ORDERS the execution of the following protective measures:

a) That the child receive all the health care and services required by her condition;

b) That the contacts between the mother and X be according to an agreement between the parties; failing which these contacts will be supervised discontinuously; should the parties not agree on the frequency of visits, the frequency will be kept at twice a week. Telephone contacts can take place every day that the mother does not visit the child;

c) That a person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of six (6) months;

d) That Mrs. A continue the follow-up as part of her probation;

e) That Mrs. A continue the follow-up with regard to her parenting skills and apply the recommendations of the various professionals;

f) That Mrs. A receive the necessary services (mental health, managing emotions, CIPTO) and that she follow the recommendations of the various professionals;

g) That Mrs. A report every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection worker;

h) That Mrs. A participate actively in the application of the intervention plan; [ 23 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the intention of the Director of Youth Protection to avail herself, if the situation so warrants, of the means provided for in

Section 62 of the Youth Protection Act in order to allow the child gradual reintegration into her mother’s home, in the last two months of the placement measure; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection. __________________________________ VALMONT BEAULIEU, J.Q.C. Mtre. Émilie De Bellefeuille Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Daniel Lessard Counsel for the child Mtre. Richard Legendre Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 19, 2018