2013 QCCQ 8190, 2013 QCCQ 8190

Protection de la jeunesse — 131658 2013 QCCQ 8190 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division NO: 640-41-001462-123 DATE: January 7, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [Social worker 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A PETITIONER AND X Born […], 2010 CHILD AND A MOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion to review and extend a decision rendered on May 28, 2012, in which the child was placed in a foster family for a period of six months. The Court declared that the security and the development of X were endangered because of the risk of negligence and because of psychological ill treatment. [ 2 ] X, now […] months old, has been living in a foster family for the larger part of his young life.

In fact, he has been placed for a period of fifteen months. [ 3 ] The situation of the mother described in the last judgement is mostly the same. [ 4 ] She does not have a job anymore. [ 5 ] On June 26, she left the community to undergo a therapy in a treatment centre in town A. She prematurely put an end to this therapy on July 7, after only two weeks of a five-week program. She neglected to inform the Social Worker about leaving the treatment centre. In fact, she lived for a period of time in town B and thereafter, in town C.

Her family was not aware of her whereabouts nor was the Social Worker in charge of her case. [ 6 ] The mother only came back to town D during the first week of August. She did not inform the Social Worker of her return. [ 7 ] On August 9, the Social Worker bumped into the mother in the community and asked her to come and meet with her at the office the next morning. She did not show up. [ 8 ] The mother had not seen her son since her departure for the treatment centre. She tried to have an access right through a member of her family. The latter asked for an access right with X.

Questioned by the Social Worker, she finally admitted that she was sent by the mother and that the access right requested was to be exercised by the mother without the Social Worker being informed. [ 9 ] Finally, the mother met with the Social Worker on August 14. The following day, she informed the Social Worker that she would leave the community on August 19 for a three-week period to participate in the [event 1].

This activity is not a real treatment for alcohol addiction but at least alcohol or drugs are not allowed during this trip. [ 10 ] Upon her return to town D on September 10, the mother did not update the Social Worker. [ 11 ] On September 14, she admitted to the Social Worker that she had been drinking a couple of days upon her arrival in the community. [ 12 ] An appointment was set for September 20 in order to establish a

schedule for her access rights with X. Again, the mother did not show up. [ 13 ] Access rights were scheduled for the 26, 27, and 28 of October. The mother failed to be present at the latest date.

[ 14 ] After that, the mother was living here and there. She never informed the Social Worker that she had been kicked out from her girlfriend's place. [ 15 ] On November 7, she was seen on the street by the Social Worker. The mother stated that she was not doing so well and that she did not ask for visitation rights because she had nowhere to exercise these access rights. [ 16 ] In her testimony, the mother said that she was not really ready to go to a treatment centre, that it was too hard. [ 17 ] She said that she has decreased her alcohol consumption.

We have to notice that upon her arrival in the community after three weeks on the [event 1], the first thing she did is drink, not ask for an access right to her child. [ 18 ] The same situation occurred when she left the treatment centre. She lived two or three weeks in town B and town C. She had left the community on June 26, which means that she was more than six weeks without any access rights to her child. [ 19 ] So, the lifestyle of the mother has not really improved since the last court order. [ 20 ] The mother is still unable to provide a healthy and stable environment to X.

She still experiences difficulty to find a stable place for herself. She still has problems with alcohol consumption. [ 21 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks for a placement until X reaches the age of majority. The mother requests a shorter placement, for a period of one year. On behalf of the child, Me Ouellette is of the opinion that the child has the right to have a stable home, and responsible adults to take care of him.

Chances were given to the mother; her situation remains the same after more than one year of services. [ 22 ] The situation of the mother is basically the same as it was when an agreement on voluntary measures was signed on September 8, 2011. [ 23 ] The child has lived most of his life in a foster family and he has established strong bonds with the parents. [ 24 ] The foster parents are adequate and are willing to care for X until he reaches the age of majority. [ 25 ] With the evidence tendered, the Court cannot say that it would be possible to return X to the custody of his mother in a short- term period.

After one year of services, the situation remains the same. The Court has the duty to protect the child giving him conditions that will ensure a healthy development.

The last judgement rendered by the Court contained a serious warning to the mother: « The mother is well aware that she is at a turning point and, if she fails to change her lifestyle, the Court will have to contemplate a longer placement for X» [ 26 ] Unfortunately, the mother did not put all her efforts to change her lifestyle and, at this moment, it is impossible to say that one day, she will have settled her problems and be able to care for her son without endangering him. [ 27 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X, born […] 2010, are still endangered; [ 30 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster family of B and C until he reaches the age of majority, foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection to implement the child's life plan; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, the mother, and the foster family for the same period; [ 32 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and its representatives; [ 33 ] WITHDRAWS parental authority from the mother and gives the authorisation to the foster parents, namely B and C to sign all medical, school, and social authorisations including a passport, required for the child's benefit; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the visitation rights between the mother and X be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency. [ 35 ] ORDERS the mother to be and remain sober when in presence of the child; [ 36 ] ORDERS the mother not to put the child in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 37 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the court orders if required to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the application of the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Marianne Gagnon-Bourget Lawyer for the petitioner M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child M e Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: November 20, 2012