2021 QCCQ 11083, 2021 QCCQ 11083

Protection de la jeunesse — 215845 2021 QCCQ 11083 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth division” N o : 455-41-001023-167 DATE: July 29, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- B Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JB5047 JUDGMENT [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.). Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court order rendered on October 15, 2020. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the child X still in danger for the motives of educational neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the child to the foster family of proximity of Ms. C and Mr.

D, authorized contacts with the father according to the frequency and modalities agreed upon with the Director, forbade all contacts with the mother, ordered that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and authorized the father to exercise alone these attributes, take notice that the Director will elaborate a life plan for the child, and ordered a social follow-up for a period of nine months. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger for the same motives. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrust the child to the foster family of proximity of Ms.

C and Mr. D, authorize in the child’s favour, contacts with her father upon agreement between the parties, take judicial notice that the contacts with the father will take the form of a joint custody with the foster family of proximity, forbid all direct and indirect contacts with the mother, authorized the father to exercise alone the attributes of parental authority withdrawn from the mother, take judicial notice of the Director’s intention to clarify a permanent life project during the current measure,

made various recommendations to the parents and order a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 6 ] At the hearing on July 29, 2021, the mother is absent and not represented by a lawyer. The Court proceeds in her absence. [ 7 ] The father is present and represented. He disagrees with the recommended measures and asks that X be entrusted to him. [ 8 ] The child’s lawyer is in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. She adds that this life plan is customized to answer X’s needs. Question in litigation [ 9 ] Should X be returned to her father’s care?

Evolution of the situation [ 10 ] X is now 11 years old and lives in the foster family of proximity of Mr. D and Ms. C. [ 11 ] Since the last Court order, Ms. C has given birth to twins and X was very excited by their arrival. [ 12 ] X responds well to a structured routine and it is important for her that the rules stay the same and are followed. [ 13 ] X has a strong bond with Ms. C. [ 14 ] The contacts between X and her father have been increased in March 2021.

She now sees her father every other weekend, from Friday to Tuesday, and usually spends her school breaks at her father’s place. [ 15 ] There was a change in X’s behaviour at school during that time, but it seems to have gotten better. [ 16 ] The bond between X and her father has strengthened in the past year. [ 17 ] The father is usually sensitive to the fact that Ms. C is important to X. [ 18 ] When asked where she would like to live, X says that she would like a joint custody between her foster family and her father. [ 19 ] X doesn’t ask questions about her mother.

The delegate still has not had any communication with the mother since the last Court order. [ 20 ] The father offered a good collaboration with the social follow-up until the revision table when the Director presented the plan to have X in a sort of joint custody between himself and Ms. C. [ 21 ] The father claims that he has improved all aspects that were required by the Director, that he has now regained custody of his other children and that X should also return to his care. [ 22 ] Effectively, the evidence shows that the father is responding very well to his children’s needs.

He decided to stop working to dedicate his time and energies to his children. [ 23 ] He is attentive to his children, keeps his very active children busy and is sensitive to their needs. [ 24 ] The reports also indicate that he has worked a lot on himself and actively participated in the Director’s follow-ups, never missing a meeting and organizing his life around his children and his responsibilities. [ 25 ] He has a great bond with X’s foster family of proximity. He is able to come to agreements with them for his access rights with X. [ 26 ] He also recognized that Ms.

C is important to his daughter and that she can stay in her life as long as she likes to, whatever X’s life project will be. [ 27 ] For X, Ms. C is the maternal figure she was lacking. X feels that she is part of the C-D family and has pictures of them and her own biological family in her room. [ 28 ] The Director worked on a life plan that would answer best X’s needs and respect her wishes. [ 29 ] X has now been for over two years in her foster family and was with Mr.

D’s mother before that. [ 30 ] X is aware of her father’s claim to have her back in his care and does not want to displease him. [ 31 ] Nonetheless, the lack of maternal bond had created much hurt and feeling of abandonment in X’s life and her attachment to her foster family has provided with a reassurance on a maternal bond that helps her develop well. [ 32 ] The solutions found by the Director who was able to be creative in the measures suggested would allow for X to thrive in continuing to be reassured in her maternal bond while continuing to strengthen her paternal bond with her father. [ 33 ] At this point, the Tribunal is no longer preoccupied with the father’s parental capacity. [ 34 ] The question at stake now is what life plan would ensure the continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis (art. 91.1 al.3).

[ 35 ] The life plan proposed by the Director seems to be tailor-made to answer X’s needs. [ 36 ] The Court understands that the father needs time to ponder this plan and understand that the focus is to answer X’s needs and not to reward his accomplishments. [ 37 ] For now, the father is strongly reacting to this plan, refusing to read the reports which are full of recognition for his tremendous improvement and he even left the court room when the Court was explaining the motives for which it believes that the recommendations respond to X’s needs. [ 38 ] The Court hopes that the father will come around, as he is an essential part of this plan to answer all of his daughter’s needs. [ 39 ] After reviewing the evidence, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; REVISES the court order rendered on October 15, 2020, in the present file; ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family of proximity, namely that of Ms. C and Mr.

D; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favour contacts with her father upon agreement between the parties; in case of disagreement, the modalities and frequency will be set by the Director of Youth Protection; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the contacts with the father will take the form of a joint custody with the foster family of proximity; FORBIDS all direct and indirect contacts with the mother; ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regards or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; ORDERS that the parents take an active and honest

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely that they collaborate to the elaboration of the intervention plan and the social follow-up; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to clarify a permanent life project during the current measure; WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority as it pertains to passports and travel needs, educational needs and healthcare services; AUTHORIZES the father to exercise alone the attributes of parental authority withdrawn from the mother; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child, her father and her mother if she requests it, for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Émilie Gélineau Counsel for the DYP M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the child Date of hearing: July 29, 2021 Deposited exhibits: D-21 Date of written judgment: September 22, 2021