2014 QCCQ 20063, 2014 QCCQ 20063

Protection de la jeunesse — 148120 2014 QCCQ 20063 JN 0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Nos: 525-41-023856-107 DATE: September 10, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A, Director and X (born on […], 2010), Child and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR REVISION (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or of his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (Sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a Motion for Revision filed on May 21, 2014 pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection A (hereafter, " the Director" ), to revise an order rendered by the undersigned on November 20, 2013. [ 2 ] Since this judgment was rendered, there has been no contact between the child and her mother since February 6, 2014 given the latter's pattern of cancelling visits or not showing up. [ 3 ] The mother failed to attend a meeting scheduled with the social worker in April of 2014 to discuss this issue.

[ 4 ] The social worker is unable to reach the mother as her telephone line is out of service.

Many letters have been sent to her without any reply on her part, including one relating to her consent being required for the child to go on a planned vacation with her foster family to Florida in June of 2014. [ 5 ] As for the father, he is still incarcerated but is scheduled to be released on September 16, 2014. [ 6 ] On May 22, 2014, the Court authorizes the Director to sign all required consents pertaining to the child's authorization to travel, as well as obtaining a passport. [ 7 ] As a principal measure, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the care of a foster family until she reaches the age of majority.

The Director also recommends other measures which are meant to put an end to the situation of endangerment, as appears from the Court Report filed under Exhibit D-1. [ 8 ] The mother is absent at the hearing. Considering the testimony of the social worker, the Court accepts to proceed in her absence. [ 9 ] The father's attorney presents a Motion to Cease Representing his client explaining that the latter no longer wishes to be represented by him.

The father confirms his wish to have a new attorney and requests a postponement of the hearing. [ 10 ] Considering the observations made by the other parties, the Court dismisses the request for postponement of the hearing due to the fact that the father was present when the date of the September hearing was set in May of 2014 and that he did not act diligently, as well as considering the interest of the child. [ 11 ] The father proceeds to make a number of admissions and contests that the child be entrusted to a foster home until she reaches the age of majority, requesting that the measures be ordered for a shorter period.

He disagrees with the foster family being confidential and states that he wants to try to help the child and reassume his role as her parent. [ 12 ] Considering the young age of the child, her attorney does not make any admissions on her behalf and confirms his agreement with the recommendations sought by the Director. [ 13 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 14 ] As the Court pointed out in its written judgment filed on November 20, 2013: [25] The mother must realize once and for all that she needs to walk the talk by acknowledging X's difficulties while also ensuring a more consistent presence for the child, as well as by resolving her mental health issues through the appropriate medical follow up as well as therapy. [ 15 ] Unfortunately, the mother has failed to carry through with the required commitments.

As for the father, the Court takes notes of his wish to play a role in X's life but emphasizes the importance of his undergoing a DNA test upon his release from prison to clarify the issue of his paternity of the child once and for all. [ 16 ] If this test indeed establishes his paternity of X, he must understand that the process of re-establishing contact with her will have to be a slow and gradual one as she has not seen him since she was 8 months old. [ 17 ] The Court heard the testimony of X's foster mother who has been taking care of her since the month of July 2013.

She confirms that X has been evolving well since then, particularly regarding her speech. She has established a strong bond with the other foster child in this home who is 9 years old and whom she considers as her sister. [ 18 ] X attends day care 4 days a week and is very independent. [ 19 ] The foster mother is still willing and able to commit to assuming X until she reaches the age of majority. [ 20 ] The Court refers to the following paragraphs of its written judgment filed on November 20, 2013: [30]

Section 3 of the Act states that the decisions made under the Act must be in the interest of the child and respect his rights. However, the interest of the child is clearly linked to maintaining continuity of care, stable relationships and appropriate living conditions corresponding to the child's age and needs, as provided for under

Section 4 of the Act. [31] Thus, when the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the maximum delay of foster home placement has been attained, such as is the case with X, and that the child cannot reintegrate the family home, the Court can order foster home placement of the child until the age of majority as the best alternative to ensure a permanent life plan. [32] However, the Court refers to the following criteria set out by Mr. Justice Normand Bonin with respect to such a situation: Chaque cas doit être évalué selon ses spécificités. L'existence simultanée des éléments suivants peut cependant favoriser une telle option: 1. cette mesure s'impose à

titre de solution ultime de nature à assurer un projet de vie stable et sécurisant pour l'enfant incluant une continuité dans les soins et une préoccupation constante reliée aux problématiques et besoins de l'enfant. 2. les perspectives de retour de l'enfant dans son milieu naturel sont presque nulles et très difficilement évaluables . Les circonstances spécifiques et conditions de vie des parents amenant le Tribunal à conclure à l'inaptitude parentale sont considérées irréversibles à moyen ou long terme.

3. l'enfant est suffisamment capable et susceptible de créer et de conserver des liens affectifs et psychologiques favorables aux parents d'accueil . À cet égard, peuvent être considérés:

a) l'âge de l'enfant en regard de sa compréhension et son adhésion à la mesure, de telle façon que l'enfant ne vive pas de conflits de loyauté à l'égard de ses parents naturels et qu'il puisse, s'il y a lieu, préserver les liens établis à leur égard.

b) la durée de cohabitation au sein de la famille d'accueil, l'implication et la stabilité de celle-ci permettant raisonnablement de conclure à la probabilité marquée que l'enfant ne vivra pas de changement de famille d'accueil en cours de placement . 4. l'adhésion en toute connaissance de cause des parents, voire leur support . 1 (at page 577 – our emphasis) [ 21 ] Whereas it was premature to talk about a permanent life plan for X when applying these criteria a year ago, the evolution of the situation since then now justifies such a plan. 1 [2000] R.J.Q. Vol. 1 570 (C.Q.). [ 22 ] Indeed,

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act provides that : 91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (…) (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made. (…) If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. (…) (our emphasis) [ 23 ] As a result, the Court finds that the request for an order of placement of X in a foster family until she reaches the age of majority is justified.

In addition, for the reasons mentioned previously, the Court rules that the address of the foster home remain confidential to the father. [ 24 ] CONCLUSIONS [ 25 ] After having received the admissions of the parties and taken into consideration the testimonies heard, as well as the Court Report filed in the court record, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the security and development of the child are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act . [ 26 ] The Court is also of the opinion that the measures proposed by the Director are in the interest of the child. [ 27 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT HEREBY: [ 28 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision ; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT HEREBY: [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the address of the foster home remain confidential to the father;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision, if deemed necessary; [ 34 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father's undertaking to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection in the months to come in terms of potentially re-establishing contact with the child eventually; [ 35 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father's undertaking to undergo a DNA test upon his release from prison to clarify the issue of his paternity of the child. [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all the service providers working with the family regarding attendance and progress, including Corrections Canada; [ 37 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority relating to all required consents pertaining to the child, including obtaining a passport for travelling purposes; and [ 38 ] CONFERS these attributes to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, for the purposes of executing these measures; [ 41 ] ALL OF THESE MEASURES will be in force until the child reaches the age of majority, namely […], 2028.

Signed and filed on November 20, 2014 _______________________________________ JACQUES A. NADEAU, J.C.Q. Mtre Myriam DeBlois AN4195 Attorney for the Director Mtre Daniel Bouchard AY3558 Attorney for the child Hearing Date: September 10, 2014 JAN/mcl