2020 QCCQ 15088, 2020 QCCQ 15088

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010061 2020 QCCQ 15088 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000709-162 DATE: August 17, 2020 (written judgment rendered on September 1, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and A, unknown address Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on August 14, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2016. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to Mr. B for a period of one year. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her mother and that the placement with Mr. B has to be prolonged until her majority.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. Despite numerous attempts made by the DYP worker who spoke with different family members, it had been impossible to locate the mother. The mother had a last contact with her daughter in December 2019, and since that time, she never gave any news. Considering the mother’s situation and her poor involvement for the last years, the Court proceeds without a proper serving and in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] The child, who is 4 years old is absent, but represented by Me Meunier.

After hearing the evidence, Me Meunier submits to the Court that the situation of the child remain endangered and agrees with the recommended measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On June 3, 2016 , the mother signed a provisional agreement and consented to entrust her daughter to Ms. C and Mr. B for a period of 30 days. The child was 3 days old. [ 6 ] On July 4, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the child to Ms. C and Mr. B. [ 7 ] On August 2, 2016 , the Court was seized with the application for protection.

The evidence showed that the three oldest children of the mother were entrusted until their majority because of a situation of neglect due to substance abuse on the mother’s part. The mother neglect her medical follow-up during the pregnancy. The child will have surgery at one year old for a cleft palate. The baby was entrusted to her maternal aunt and she lived there for a few days, so she was in contact with her baby daily. In June 2016, she moved to City A instead of remaining with her baby. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to Ms. C and Mr.

B with a gradual reintegration if the situation allows it. [ 8 ] On April 3, 2017 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 9 ] On April 25, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. The mother recognized that her situation remained the same: instability, consumption and poor collaboration with the DYP. The mother did not maintain regular contacts with her daughter. The parties agreed that the child be entrusted to Ms. C until she reaches her majority. [ 10 ] On August 14, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for revision.

Since the last decision, the mother’s situation

remained the same. She moved to City B, she is difficult to be reached and she still struggles with addiction issues. The child remained in the same foster family, but Ms. C had a drinking issue. She moved to her mother’s house and takes care of X when she is sober. She really wanted to address her issues. She registered herself in three different therapy programs and was waiting for her admission. The foster father is taking good care of the child and benefit from the help of his mother who moved with him to be present all the time.

The foster parents were making sure that X was not affected by the situation and they wanted to work on their relation after Ms. C’s therapy. Because of this new situation, the Court entrusted the child to Mr. B, but noted that both foster parents are taking care of her. Facts [ 11 ] According to the last information, the mother was supposed to be in a halfway house in City B waiting for her to entrust a treatment centre. The DYP ignores if she is still there or not. The mother did not provide any information to the DYP to contact her. She never asks for news about X nor her other children.

According to the information coming from the mother’s relatives, the mother is still struggling with her addictions. [ 12 ] X is doing very well with Mr. B. Ms. C continue to work on her issue and is able to maintain her sobriety. The couple resume their relationship. X was not affected by this breakdown as Ms. C always continued to take care of her and Mr. B made sure to maintain the same routine. [ 13 ] X has a weekly follow-up with a speech therapist from City C by videoconference. [ 14 ] The foster parents consider her as their own child, and she is part of the family.

Analysis [ 15 ] The situation of X remains endangered because of her mother’s way of life. [ 16 ] X has the chance to evolve since she was 3 months old in a very loving and caring environment.

She is with extended family members who consider her and take care of her as she would be their own child. [ 17 ] This foster family had a difficult period during the last months, but they were able to protect X from any consequences of this situation and they were able to resolve their issues totally. [ 18 ] The Court thanks them for their commitment with X and confirms having no hesitation to grant the recommended measures which are in the best interest of the child. [ 19 ] This life plan respect the principle of the YPA and of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families .

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2016, are still endangered; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr. B, proximity foster family, until she reaches the age of majority; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES contacts between X and Ms.

C; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection including the presence of a third party if needed; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the foster family and the mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person to the Director of Youth Protection on her whereabouts outside the community A; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother make sure the child is not in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother accept the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS the attributes of parental authority from the mother and GRANTS it to Mr.

B, who is now authorized to sign all the forms regarding schooling, health care, extracurricular activities, authorization of travelling outside the country, request for a passport, driving licence; [ 31 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Antoine Meunier, attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 17, 2020