2021 QCCQ 16588, 2021 QCCQ 16588

Protection de la jeunesse — 214659 2021 QCCQ 16588 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002307-194 DATE: February 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 1, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, unknown address in City A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on July 7, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, until February 28, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return X to his parents and asks to entrust him to a foster family, namely Ms. C, until [...], 2032.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is homeless in City A. She was served by the newspaper as authorized by the Court. She is absent and not represented. She did not contact the DYP office nor the clerk. Considering the serving, the best interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. Considering the serving, the best interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is absent and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune.

On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits that his situation remain endangered and that the recommended measures are in his best interest. [ 6 ] X has 2 siblings, Y is 8 years old, and Z is 4 years old. The Court is also seized with their situation. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On August 5, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The evidence showed that the situation of the family was known by the DYP since 2013. The mother had an alcohol consumption issues, and she was involved in a violent conjugal relationship.

The children often witnessed their mother while intoxicated, and were left without proper supervision. The children often had to search by their own for a safe place to sleep. [ 8 ] The grandmother was present for the children, but she also had an alcohol consumption issue as the maternal extended family members, so it was always difficult to find a reliable person to take care of the children. The paternal side is reliable, but the mother is not welcome to request for help. [ 9 ] The mother is very adequate when she is sober, but unfortunately, she had no plan to stop drinking.

Due to her alcohol consumption, the mother had financial difficulties preventing her from being able to feed her children during the visits. The mother was recently informed that she suffered from a tumour.

[ 10 ] X is taking a parental role towards his younger brother. The attachment between him and his mother was very strong. [ 11 ] The Court declared that the security and development are endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family with the possibility of progressive reintegration if the situation allows it, the whole until May 22, 2020. [ 12 ] X benefit from pediatric services provided by [Centre A] because he is at risk to present development delays, but it is always difficult to convince him to go.

The mother said that she cannot force him to go if he does not like that. [ 13 ] On May 22, 2020 , the Court prolonged the measures on a provisional measure. [ 14 ] On July 7, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother left for City A and had no contact with her children since December 2019. Y and X were entrusted to various foster families before being entrusted to their older sister. The previous foster family gave up because the children were running away frequently to go to their mother’s place.

The Court entrusted the children to a foster family chosen by the DYP until February 28, 2021, withdrawn the attributes of the parental authority from the mother, ordered a prohibition of contacts between X and Y, and Mr. D and Ms. E, order that Z benefit from services with a speech therapist and ordered that a life plan be prepared. Facts [ 15 ] X is now 6 years old. He remained under his sister’s care since the last order, and he is doing very well. He expressed being well there and he wished to stay there. He developed a very strong bond with his sister and her spouse. [ 16 ] He is going to school regularly.

He is in Grade 1. He has good social abilities. [ 17 ] He is living with his sister Y. Her brother Z is entrusted to Ms. F and due to public health restriction, the contacts with him are less frequent. He misses him. [ 18 ] During the summer, 2 incidents occurred in the foster family. During the first incident, the foster mother needed a break and she entrusted the children to Ms. E despite the prohibition of contact ordered by the Court. The second event happened in August when Mr. G, Ms. C’s spouse, was drunk. The foster parents were met and they totally understand that they made a bad decision.

A list of reliable people were made with the DYP when they need a break or when they plan to drink. Since August, no other event was reported. [ 19 ] The mother is still in City A and she is homeless. She called the DYP sometimes and each time, she appeared intoxicated. She could be emotional or aggressive. She did not exercise physical contacts with her children since the last order. Only two small Facetime contacts were organized by Ms. C. Y and X were very shy with their mother. [ 20 ] Mr. B exercised contacts with Y and X once a week through Ms.

C, but the DYP worker was not able to meet with him and doing so, does not have the portrait of his actual situation. He recognized that his living environment does not permit him to take care of his children on a daily basis, despite his desire to do so. Y and X are satisfied with this frequency of contacts and do not want more. [ 21 ] The maximum delays of placements are reached in the situation of Z and X, and quite reached in the situation of Y. The parents are obviously unable to care and provide for their child.

X has developed strong bonds with his foster parents who are willing to continue to foster him until the age of majority. The child is well stabilized in his environment. Analysis [ 22 ] The child’s situation remains endangered and the parents are not in a position to take care of him currently nor in a near future. [ 23 ] The maximum delays of placements are reached in the situation of X and the Court has to make a permanent decision. The child is living for more than one year in an environment where he receives answers to all his needs.

He is in a very loving and caring environment. [ 24 ] Moreover, the child is maintained in his community. He kept contact with his extended family and Z. [ 25 ] The life plan suggested by the DYP respected the criteria established by the jurisprudence and is in the best interest of the child. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are still endangered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely Ms.

C; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and collaborate fully with the Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the

Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family until [...], 2032; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 22, 2021