2013 QCCQ 20937, 2013 QCCQ 20937

Protection de la jeunesse — 139322 2013 QCCQ 20937 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] « Chambre de la Jeunesse »

N° : 540-41-003699-120 DATE : Le 12 juin 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE : L’HONORABLE PIERRE HAMEL ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de: X Né le [...] 2005 ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse demande la prolongation d'une ordonnance rendue par l'Honorable Claude Melançon le 17 décembre 2012 qui prévoyait l'hébergement de l'enfant en famille d'accueil pour une période de six (6) mois, accompagné d'autres mesures visant à assurer la protection de l'enfant. [ 2 ] Durant l'ordonnance précitée, X a continué à manifester certains troubles de comportement, tant dans sa famille d'accueil qu'en milieu scolaire. [ 3 ] La mère rapporte qu'elle n'a pas vu son fils depuis le mois de septembre 2012; toutefois, elle aurait maintenu quelques contacts téléphoniques lorsque l'enfant était chez sa grand-mère maternelle.

Aussi, la grand-mère aurait permis des rencontres entre la mère et l'enfant durant cette période, en contravention de l'ordonnance précitée. Ainsi, il n'a pas été possible pour le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse de mettre en application l'ordonnance du Juge Melançon relative à la supervision de contacts mère-enfant. [ 4 ] Toutefois, X a bénéficié de contacts réguliers avec sa grand-mère maternelle, contacts qui sont aussi l'occasion pour lui d'être en relation avec son demi-frère, Y.

Ces contacts s'avèrent bénéfiques pour l'enfant. [ 5 ] La situation de la mère a peu évolué; elle n'a pas cherché à rétablir un contact significatif avec l'enfant et ne cherche pas à connaître son évolution auprès du Directeur.

La mère n'a pas collaboré avec le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse et rien, dans sa situation actuelle, n'indique qu'elle pourra éventuellement reprendre la charge de l'enfant dans un avenir prévisible. [ 6 ] La grand-mère maternelle, qui a soutenu avoir l'intention de prendre en charge l'enfant, reconnaît actuellement que son travail et ses occupations personnelles ne lui permettent pas d'assurer la prise en charge d'un enfant, particulièrement d'un enfant qui a des besoins comme ceux de X.

D'ailleurs, il est préférable que celle-ci continue à jouer son rôle de « grand-mère » auprès de l'enfant et maintenir des projets réalistes concernant son implication future auprès de l'enfant. [ 7 ] X a vécu plusieurs placements et tel que le mentionnait le Juge Melançon dans la décision précitée, un projet de vie permanent s'impose afin d'assurer le bien-être de l'enfant. Le 16 mai dernier, l'enfant a intégré une famille d'accueil susceptible de le recevoir à long terme.

Cette avenue apparaît nécessaire afin d'assurer le développement et la sécurité de X et lui fournir un milieu d'accueil susceptible de lui assurer les conditions de vie appropriées à ses besoins de manière permanente.

[ 8 ] La mère, qui a dans le passé contesté les motifs de compromission et refusé de collaborer au suivi social, a finalement accepté les recommandations faites par le Directeur. Effectivement, celle-ci n'était pas présente à l'audience, mais représentée par avocat.

Elle a indiqué au Tribunal son accord aux mesures proposées par le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse. [ 9 ] La procureure de l'enfant se disait, elle aussi, en accord avec ces mesures et affirmait qu'elles étaient nécessaires pour assurer la sécurité et le développement de l'enfant. [ 10 ] X devra continuer à bénéficier de sorties et de contacts avec le milieu de la grand-mère maternelle dans la mesure où ceux-ci ne mettent pas en péril la stabilité de son placement dans sa famille d'accueil. [ 11 ] Dans ce contexte, le Tribunal n'a aucune hésitation à faire droit à la requête et considère que les recommandations que lui a faites le Directeur s'avèrent nécessaires, dans l'intérêt de l'enfant et respectueuses de ses droits. [ 12 ] EN CONSÉQUENCE ET POUR TOUS CES MOTIFS, LA COUR : [ 13 ] DECLARES that are deemed compromised the security and development of X under

article 38 (

c) and (

e) of the Law; [ 14 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family for one (1) year, until June 30, 2014; [ 15 ] ORDERS that contacts between X and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequencies, modalities, duration, place, in the best interest and need of the child and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection if needed; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his maternal grandmother, Mrs.

A, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and by agreement among the parties; [ 17 ] ORDERS the maternal grandmother not to put X in contact with his mother under any circumstances, except with the consent of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] ORDERS that therapeutic services be offered to X as per recommendations of the psychological assessment written by Catherine Cloutier; [ 19 ] ORDERS that certain attributes of the parental authority be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection en regard des soins de santé, activités scolaires et parascolaires, ainsi que de voyage; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to X and his family for the same period of time; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the situation of the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the enactment. __________________________________ PIERRE HAMEL J.C.Q.

Me Isabelle Roy Procureure du Directeur Me Annie Miele Procureure de l'enfant Me Hugues Foucher Procureur de la mère Protection de la jeunesse — 139322 2013 QCCQ 20937 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N°: 540-41-003699-120 DATE: June 12, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ THE HONOURABLE PIERRE HAMEL, PRESIDING ______________________________________________________________________ In The Case of: X Born [...], 2005 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [1] The Director applied for an extension of the order render by The Honourable Justice Claude Melançon on December 17, 2012, providing for the placement of the youth in a foster family for a period of six (6) months, along with other measures aimed at the protection of the youth. [2] During the period covered by the aforementioned order, X continued to show conduct related problems, both in his foster family and at school. [3] The mother reported not having seen her son since September 2012; however she had a few telephone contacts with him while the child was living with his maternal grandmother.

The grandmother also reportedly allowed the mother to visit the child during the period covered by the order, in violation of said order. It was therefore impossible for the Director to enforce the order of Justice Melançon regarding the supervision of the contacts between the mother and the child. [4] However, X was allowed to have regular contacts with his maternal grandmother, which gave him the opportunity to see his half-brother Y. Contacts with Y are beneficial to the youth.

[5] The situation of the mother has not progressed very much. She has not sought to re-establish significant contacts with the child and does not seek to be kept informed by the Director of the evolution of her son’s situation.

The mother has not collaborated with the Director and nothing in her current situation indicates that she could eventually regain custody of the child in the foreseeable future. [6] The maternal grandmother, who insisted wanting to take care of the child, acknowledged that her current work situation and personal activities did not allow her to take charge of a child, particularly given the needs of a child like X.

Incidentally, it would be preferable that she’d rather be allowed to play her role as a grandmother and pursuit realistic projects regarding her future involvement in the child’s life. [7] X has experience several placements and, as noted by Justice Melançon in his order, a permanent plan is needed for his well being. On May 16 of this year, the child was placed in a foster family capable of receiving him for long term.

This appears to be necessary to guarantee the development and security of X and to provide him with an environment capable of meeting his needs in a permanent manner. [8] The mother, who has opposed the Director reports and refused to be involved with the social services follow-ups in the past, has now accepted the recommendation of the Director. In fact, she was not in Court for the hearing but represented by an attorney.

She informed the Court of her acceptance of the measures proposed by the Director. [9] The attorney for the child also expressed her agreement with the measures and stated that they were necessary to guarantee the security and development of the child. [10] X will be allowed to visit and have contacts with his maternal grandmother inasmuch as these visits and contacts do not jeopardise the stability of his placement with his foster family. [11] In these circumstances, the Court grants the application of the Director without any hesitation and finds the recommendations of the Director to be necessary, in the interest of the child and respectful of his rights. [12] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [13] DECLARES that are deemed compromised the security and development of X under

article 38 (

c) and (

e) of the Law; [14] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family for one (1) year, until June 30, 2014; [15] ORDERS that contacts between X and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequencies, modalities, duration, place, in the best interest and need of the child and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection if needed; [16] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his maternal grandmother, Mrs.

A, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and by agreement among the parties; [17] ORDERS the maternal grandmother not to put X in contact with his mother under any circumstances, except with the consent of the Director of Youth Protection; [18] ORDERS that therapeutic services be offered to X as per recommendations of the psychological assessment written by Catherine Cloutier;

[19] ORDERS that certain attributes of the parental authority be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection regarding health care, school and extracurricular activities as well as travels; [20] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to X and his family for the same period of time; [21] ORDERS that the situation of the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the enactment. __________________________________ PIERRE HAMEL J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Roy Attorney for the Director Me Annie Miele Attorney for the child Me Hugues Foucher Attorney for the mother