2013 QCCQ 18062, 2013 QCCQ 18062

Protection de la jeunesse — 136476 2013 QCCQ 18062 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025672-122 DATE: November 28, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2010 - and - A - and - B (deceased) Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 28, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered December 19, 2012, ordering that the child be entrusted to his paternal grandmother, Ms.

C, for a period of one year and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child remained under the care of the paternal grandmother; • The child is doing well under the care of the paternal grandmother; • In February 2013, an educator worked with the paternal grandmother from February to June 2013; • The paternal uncle, D, continues to reside in the home, and his mental health has been stable; • The mother contacted the worker at the end of February 2013; • The mother went to several random drug tests and all returned negative except for the first one that tested positive to marijuana; • The visits between the child and the mother resumed on March 20, 2013, every Wednesday at the mother’s home and at A offices, under supervision; • The visits were suspended on May 22, 2013, after the mother refused to meet with the worker and the educator had did not return their calls; • Referral was made for the mother to have individual therapy with CSSS A, but the mother’s name was taken off the waiting list as she did not return the calls nor answered the letters;

• The mother had supervised visits with the child between July 17, 2013, and August 7, 2013, but after that did not return the worker’s calls; • The mother does not realize the negative impact of not maintaining consistent visits with the child; • In July and August 2013, the mother did not attend three random drug tests required by the worker; [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be maintained in his grandmother’s care for a period of one year with a social follow-up for the same period.

Furthermore, the Director of Youth Protection informs the Court that during this period, a permanent plan will be established for the child. [ 5 ] The mother was not present at the hearing although she was informed of the date by the youth worker. The mother is currently of address unknown and has not seen the child since August 2013. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in X’s best interest.

However, Me Lavigueur states that it would be important for the grandmother to inform the Director of Youth Protection if her son, D, is no longer adhering to his treatment plan. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of the grandmother, C, and of the uncle, D. The grandmother accepts to continue caring for X for as long as necessary. She confirms that the mother has not seen the child since August, but states that the mother has called her on two occasions. As for D, he is following his treatment and receives injections every two weeks.

He plans to enrol in adult education in January 2014 in order to complete his high school. [ 8 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s whereabouts are unknown and that she has not stabilized her living situation. In fact, there has been little change in the mother’s circumstances since the last Court order. [ 9 ] The psychological assessment of the child was conducted by Diane McLean, psychologist, and her report is dated May 19, 2013. The intellectual profile of the child is in the average range in verbal and non verbal development. He can be impulsive and have difficulty following rules.

Furthermore, the child presents some speech delays. [ 10 ] The psychologist recommends that the grandmother read to X daily, that the child be corrected when he mispronounces a word and that clear limits be set for the child. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his grandmother’s care for another year. It is clear that the mother is not in a position to answer to her son needs on a daily basis and that she will not be able to care for him even on a long term basis.

Furthermore, X is now attached to his grandmother who provides him a secure and stable environment. [ 12 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 13 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to his paternal grandmother’s care, Ms.

C, for a period of one year; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that DYP intends to establish a permanent plan for the child over the next year; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency, modalities and supervision; [ 19 ] AUTHORIZES DYP to put in end to a contact if the mother is inappropriate; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and AUTHORIZES Ms.

C to sign all consents for the child, including for medical services, education, travel purposes and passport, if the mother cannot be reached within a 24 hours period; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother collaborate with DYP and meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 22 ] ORDERS Ms.

C to collaborate with DYP and to inform the youth worker if D is not adhering to his treatment plan; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed December 6, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marie-José Lavigueur Counsel for the child Date of hearing: November 28, 2013