2021 QCCQ 15228, 2021 QCCQ 15228

Protection de la jeunesse — 219042 2021 QCCQ 15228 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002385-190 DATE: October 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C.

Applicant and A 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 January 14, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2019. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until October 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his mother and asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms.

B, until the age of majority. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother was notified verbally about the hearing. Indeed, she refuses to provide her address to be served properly. She was also notified by the foster mother with whom she is in regular contact. She told her that she would attend the hearing, but she was not authorized to board the plane from Town B because she did not file the application to be authorized to travel to Region A [1] . The mother never called the DYP neither her lawyer, Me Angèle Tommasel to be helped.

To facilitate the situation and considering the nature of the request, the Court called the mother and included her in the videoconference call. The mother yelled against the Court and disconnected by herself. The Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, she submits that his security and development are still endangered and that the measures suggested are in his best interest. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On January 13, 2020 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. He was 5 months old.

He was entrusted to a foster family since he was 2 weeks old. The mother has 4 other children. They are all entrusted. The mother was living in a violent conjugal relationship, and she went to a women's shelter in Town B for a few months. She was able to remain sober. She had exercised her contact with her son and showed good parental capacities, but she did not have a stable place to live and she continued to display aggressive behaviour that could impact the child.

The Court declared the situation of the child endangered [2] and entrusted him to a foster family with a progressive reintegration under his mother’s care, the whole for 3 months. [ 6 ] On May 26, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother remained in a women's shelter for a while and had regular contacts with her son. Due to Covid-19, she had to leave the women's shelter and no contact could take place. The foster mother is proactive to facilitate the virtual contacts. The foster mother, Ms. C also fosters his sister. The Court specifically entrusted the child to Ms.

C and ordered a reintegration under certain conditions, the whole until January 31, 2021. [ 7 ] On January 14, 2021 , the Court revised the situation again. The foster mother, aged of 60 years old, informed the DYP that she could not foster the child on a long term basis. The mother is still involved in her conflictual conjugal relationship and unable to offer an appropriate living environment for the child. The foster mother of another sibling was reached and agreed to have the child under her care. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until October 31, 2021.

Facts [ 8 ] The child is living with Ms. B since February 1, 2021. She is also the tutor of his brother, and she adopted the child’s maternal cousin. [ 9 ] He is attending daycare and he develops very well. His motor skills and language are monitored because it could raise some concerns, but not enough to receive professional services. [ 10 ] As he did at the beginning of his previous placement, he needed a few months to adapt to his new environment. He showed a lot of signs of anxiety. The constancy of the foster mother was required to reinsure him.

Such behaviour could be associate to an attachment disorder, but this had not been assessed by a professional. [ 11 ] The mother continued to be very unstable. She moves from Town B to Region A back and forth. She lives sometimes in a hotel, sometimes at her boyfriend’s place where events of violence occurred. She lacks transparency about her exact situation. She refuses to provide her address, and to say where she works when she works. [ 12 ] The mother did not respect the ban of contacts between the child and Mr. D saying that this latter deserve to see the child.

He would be the biological father of the child, but is undeclared. [ 13 ] The foster mother is proactive to maintain the contacts and she does not hesitate to travel to Town B to make the contact happened. She has a very good relationship with the mother and she is capable of communicating with her even if the mother could be aggressive toward her.

As for example, when the mother has disconnected from the hearing, it took only a few minutes for her to communicate with the foster mother through Messenger to apologize for her attitude and saying that she know her child is in good hands. [ 14 ] With the time and considering that the mother rarely make herself available to have contact with her son, the good bonds that she had been able to create during the first months of his placement, were reduced to nothing because as of today the child does not recognize her. [ 15 ] The foster mother is very familiar with the Inuit Culture has she works as a nurse in Region A since 2005.

She had met the mother there and it is the mother who asked her to foster her child. Analysis [ 16 ] The mother’s situation did not improve a lot and that maintains the child in a situation where his security and development continue to be endangered. [ 17 ] Nothing could make us think that this situation could positively evolve in a near future.

The mother makes obviously nothing to improve her situation. [ 18 ] Considering the return of the child under her care is impossible and considering that the maximum period of placement is reached, the Court has to render a permanent decision in his situation if the plan suggested by the DYP fulfill the child’s needs. [ 19 ] Ms. B has been chosen by the mother to foster one of the child’s siblings and recently to foster the child. Ms. B demonstrated her ability and her willingness to take care of the child on a long term basis.

She also demonstrates that she maintained the contact with the mother and she will continue to do so. The Court is also convinced that Ms. B will continue to do all she can to maintain the child in contact with his culture. Ms. B travelled from Town D to Town C to confirm such commitment. [ 20 ] The Court is totally satisfied with the evidence and has no hesitation to entrust the child to Ms. B until he reaches his majority.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are still endangered; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. B, until the age of majority; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that Mr.

D not come into contact with the child; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contact between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the mother; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE until […], 2037.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 22, 2021