2022 QCCQ 12081, 2022 QCCQ 12081

Protection de la jeunesse — 227117 2022 QCCQ 12081 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002765-227 DATE: October 20, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION RECTIFIED ( sections 95(1) (2) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR., c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection applied under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] for the revision of a decision rendered o n June 7, 2022, by the Honourable Peggy Warolin, J.C.Q. At that time, she declared that the security and development of X were still in danger under

section 38 (b) (1) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act [2] and entrusted the child to a kinship foster family until June 30, 2023. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother was represented by counsel and contested the measures. She wants her daughter to remain in her care and wonders why she hasn’t had contact with her daughter since June 2022. [ 3 ] On June 22, 2022, a provisional measure was ordered and the child was entrusted to a foster family until October 20, 2022. The mother was there and contested the fact that the legal delay of 60 days had not been respected. The Court postponed the case to October 20, 2022, but on the reserve docket.

There weres no further explanations according to the law. It appears from the minutes of the hearing that the judge summarized the situation, including the lack of resources and the Director’s situation. At that moment, the Court ordered that contact between the child and the mother be determined by the Director as to the terms and frequency. We learned at the hearing that the mother did not have any contact with her daughter between the moment the provisional measures were ordered until October 20, 2022.

It appears that despite the missed deadlines, the Director did not prioritize this file even though it was on the reserve docket. [ 4 ] Unfortunately, the mother is not there today to explain the situation and did not add any other evidence or testimony. [ 5 ] Since the last Court hearing, the child has remained entrusted to the kinship foster family of the paternal grandmother, B. On June 10, 2022, Ms. B, accompanied the child for a visit at the mother’s house. On that occasion, the mother gave ‘’the finger’’ to her daughter-in-law, who was there with Ms. B, for no particular reason. Ms.

B disclosed that, due to the mother’s violence, she did not feel safe going to the mother’s house anymore and that she started to be scared of her. On June 13, 2022, Ms. B disclosed to Youth Protection that the mother had become extremely hostile when she went to her house for a visit with the child. That same day, Youth Protection went to speak with the mother to try and facilitate the communication, but the mother became disorganized and slammed the door in the worker’s face. On June 17, 2022, Youth Protection received information from Ms. B that the mother threatened to beat her up and kill

her. As she was beginning to fear for her own safety, Ms. B refused to continue caring for the child any longer. When confronted with the threats she made, the mother did not try to deny them and stated that she did not want to speak to anyone about the child. [ 6 ] The maternal grandparents disclosed to Youth Protection that the mother’s mental health had severely deteriorated in the last few weeks, notably that she displayed paranoia, irritability and frequent outbursts. The maternal grandparents recognize the mother’s inability to care for the child unless she receives professional help.

No other family member is currently in a position to take care of the child. [ 7 ] Counsel for the child agreed with the measures and told the Court that they were in the best interest of the child and met her needs. [ 8 ] After considering the documentary evidence, the testimony and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to declare that the security and development of the child are still in danger and that the measures suggested meet her needs and are deemed to be in her best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 10 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on June 20, 2022; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger under

section 38 (b) (1) (

i) and 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [3] [ 12 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 13 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of this confidentiality if the situation allows; [ 14 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection concerning health, school, daycare, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child’s mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 16 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that an Inuk community worker go to meet the mother to explain the current situation with her child and the Director of Youth Protection; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child’s mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help from the medical profession as well as social services for her mental health issues and that she follow the recommendations of these professionals; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 20 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and her older brother, C be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection or an authorized third party; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the Director of Youth Protection meet with the paternal and maternal grandparents to see if they can arrange visits between the mother and her child; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother consent to the Director of Youth Protection having access to her medical file; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 24 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this judgment; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] The whole until October 31 , 2023 . __________________________________ NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q.

Mtre Alex Génier Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the D.Y.P.

Mtre Elizabeth Pouliot Counsel for the child Mtre Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 20, 2022