2013 QCCQ 17681, 2013 QCCQ 17681

Protection de la jeunesse — 136099 2013 QCCQ 17681 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] "Youth Division" No: 145-41-000421-120 DATE: November 29, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [ SOCIAL WORKER 1 ] Petitioner and X , born on […], 2012 Child and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JP2122 [ 1 ] The director of youth protection is asking the Court to order that X remain in foster care until his age of majority. [ 2 ] The child's lawyer agrees with that recommendation. [ 3 ] As for the mother, she does not show up at the hearing, despite being duly advised. [ 4 ] X is the mother's seventh child.

The others were all withdrawn from the mother's care. Two of them are entrusted to their great grandmother while the other ones live in foster families. Judgments were rendered to order their placement until their age of majority.

[ 5 ] Social services were provided to the mother for many years, but unfortunately, she never worked effectively on her personal issues. She was never able to put in place sustainable improvement of her situation as an individual and as a parent. [ 6 ] The mother's long lasting addiction problems play an important

part in her pattern of neglect. [ 7 ] X is now sixteen months old. At birth, he tested positive to drugs and was treated with morphine, in order to ease his pain. He was entrusted to a foster family when he had his leave from the hospital. [ 8 ] On August 21, 2012, the child is entrusted to his current foster family. He has lived there ever since. [ 9 ] Frequent supervised visits were scheduled with the mother. The mother attends approximately one visit out of three.

She cancels contacts or simply fails to be present. [ 10 ] Several services are, once more, suggested and put in place for the mother, notably addiction and psychological counselling, as well as external educator services. The mother does not cooperate. She does not even provide up to date information about her address and phone number.

Therefore, it could be difficult to reach her if it is urgent to do so. [ 11 ] The worker summarizes the situation when saying that the mother considers there is nothing wrong with her lifestyle, the problem belongs to social services. [ 12 ] Needless to say there is very little hope, if any, that the situation will evolve in a near future. [ 13 ] That Court is satisfied that the workers did everything they possibly could to try to involve the mother and help her. [ 14 ] It is now time to plan the future of the child, to provide him with security and stability for years to come.

Fortunately, his foster mother is committed to answer his needs and take care of him. There is a significant bond between the child and the foster mother. She loves him and describes him as a healthy and very smart little boy. [ 15 ] At the hearing, the worker testifies about contacts between the child, his mother and his brother and sisters. She is concerned about the relationship to maintain between the children. [ 16 ] As for the visits with the mother, it is not easy to establish what will be in the best interest of the child as time goes by.

There are signs showing that he feels uncomfortable in the presence of his mother. [ 17 ] X is still very young and the mother did not behave as to create a bond with her son. She is probably overwhelmed with her own personal problems and cannot put the focus on her child's interest and needs. [ 18 ] The mother does not present herself in Court to request access rights to her son. [ 19 ] The director of youth protection does not object to those contacts, but remains preoccupied by their effect on the child. The Court shares that concern.

Contacts will have to be planned by the worker, keeping in mind they must be in the interest of the child. [ 20 ] As the Supreme Court of Canada told us on several occasions, the interest of the child is not equivalent to the absence of harm. On that matter, it is relevant to quote Justice L'Heureux- Dubé in the case of P. (D.) v.

S. (C.) [1] : "Finally, as I also observed in Young , waiting for harm to occur, which is essentially the theory of harm, is not only contrary to the child's best interests but puts the burden or error on the child and places the emphasis a posteriori rather that a priori , which definitely distorts the purpose of these Civil Code provisions, which are designed specifi-cally to avoid subjecting the child to harm. It is the child, as I stated above, who should always be the focus, not the interests or needs of the parents. The right to access is a right designed primarily to be-nefit the child, not the parents.

It is the parents who have the duty of providing for, protecting and promoting their children's best interests." [ 21 ] In the present case, the Court thinks it would not be reasonable to set a strict frame for the contacts, since none of the parties require one. The director of youth protection will have to be cautious when setting modalities of contacts. The child will grow up, his situation will evolve and his needs will change on some aspects. [ 22 ] If the mother is not satisfied with the length or frequency of the visits, she can ask the Court to establish them more precisely.

[ 23 ] The evidence demonstrates that the petition is well founded. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the present petition; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act; [ 26 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on March 25, 2013; [ 27 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family designated by the director of youth protection until his age of majority ([…], 2030); [ 28 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the choice of the director of youth protection and ORDERS that the foster family be the one of Mrs.

B [ 29 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and health services that are required by his situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the visits with the mother be authorized, planned and supervised by the director of youth protection, as long as deemed necessary; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother inform the director of youth protection of all address and telephone changes in a timely manner, so that she can be reached by the delegate at all times; [ 32 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of her parental authority with regard to the authorizations to be given concerning routine or urgent health services, social, academic, extracurricular activities and to obtain a passport, a social insurance card, a driver’s licence or any other legal document that X may need and DELEGATES such authority to the director of youth protection of the Centre jeunesse A, in concert with Mrs.

B; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child X and his family until […], 2030; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the carrying out of the present measures. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ME LOUYSE A. LEMIEUX for the petitioner ME FLORENCE FRAPPIER-ROUTHIER for the child MRS. A the mother (absent)

Date of hearing: November 4, 2013