2012 QCCQ 17707, 2012 QCCQ 17707

Protection de la jeunesse — 127430 2012 QCCQ 17707 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-007937-006 Date: August 27, 2012 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 1999 A , the father Petitioner -and- B , the mother Respondent -and- [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mis-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of August 27, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on January 21, 2009, whereby the now eleven year-old child, X , remained entrusted to a foster family, as previously ordered by the Honorable Nicole Bernier on October 31, 2005, and all other compatible measures were maintained. [ 3 ] The motion was filed by the child's father in order to have his contacts with his son increased. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 1- On October 31 st , 2005, a judgment was rendered in the present file the effect that the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection for a placement in a foster family until majority and other accessories;

2- On November 2011, the petitioner, at his request, received a confirmation from the Director of Civil Status of of the inscription of his paternity on the birth certificate of the child, as it appears from a letter filed herein under P-1; 3- Approximately two years ago, the petitioner had the opportunity to meet the child in a shopping centre, this visit being organized by the social worker of the moment; 4- Since then, the petitioner was denied any other access as well as the paternal grand-mother to the child; 5- So, the petitioner took steps in order to legalize his paternity in order to gain regular access to the child and this project was finalized after one year; 6- Meanwhile, the petitioner got involved in an addiction therapy on August 11, 2010 and followed all recommended treatment as it appears from a letter signed by the staff responsible of his therapy herein filed as P-2; 7- The petitioner remained abstinent since December 2010 and participated in mandatory screening program as well as he continues to attend weekly group therapy at the A Centre; 8- The petitioner wish to resume contacts and visitations with his child and participate in a positive way into his life, assuming all responsibilities he can; 9- The petitioner lives apart from mother since 2009 and there is no intentions from his part or from the part of the mother to resume cohabitation; 10- The mother, informed of his project of the petitioner in regards with his child, is un full agreement with it; 11- The child wants to have contacts and visitations from the part of his father; 12- The petitioner wishes that the Court determine a

schedule of progressive contacts and visitations as well as other modalities in order to become able to receive the child for weekends as soon as possible at his residence where the grand-mother lives also; 13- The petitioner agrees to meet and collaborate with the social worker for a follow-up around this project and as he has also plans to resume custody of the child when time comes; 14- The present motion is well founded in fact and in law and in the best interest of the child (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] At the hearing, the father was assisted by Me Lenis. [ 6 ] He sought to have it made clear to his son that he in no way intended to jeopardize his son's placement and stability with his foster family.

However, he would like to be as present and play as positive a role in his son's life as his son is willing to accept. [ 7 ] He also appeared to hope that his son would not perceive his presence or involvement as a threat to his remaining with his foster family where all his needs are being met and where he feels at home. [ 8 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lefebvre, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 9 ] The child, assisted by Me Brunet, also admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 10 ] The father filed Exhibits P-1 to P-2 as evidence: P-1: Confirmation of the Director of Civil Status of the paternity of the petitioner signed by [Social Worker 2] on November 17, 2012; P-2: Letter from the A Centre signed by Dr JC Negrette and therapist Roberta Payette on January 6, 2012. [ 11 ] The mother filed Exhibit M-1 as evidence: M-1: Letter from the B Hospital, signed by Dr.

Brown, MD, dated March 12 th 2012. [ 12 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-2 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated May 22, 2012; D-2: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 20, 2012. [ 13 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the child considers his foster parents to be his parents and wants to live with them indefinitely: […] the delegate met with Mr. A and informed him of his meeting with X. The delegate informed Mr. A that given X's position it would be emotionally damaging to him to be removed from his foster home. Mr. A reported that he would respect X's wishes in regard to his situation. [1] [ 14 ] X is thriving in their care, doing well at school and there are no reported concerns of any kind. He is content with the contacts with his parents as they are and does not wish for them to be increased for the time being.

[ 15 ] The evidence also establishes that both his parents are doing well.

As attested to by the mother's treating psychiatrist at the B Hospital, she has been following her treatment plan and appears stable [2] . [ 16 ] The father also continues to succeed in maintaining his sobriety [3] . [ 17 ] Both parents are to be congratulated on their efforts and encouraged to play a positive, supportive role in their son's life whilst respecting his own needs and rhythm. [ 18 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the position of the parties, the Court: [ 19 ] THEREFORE: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion in part; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 22 ] ORDERS that frequency and modality of contact between X and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision, if deemed necessary; [ 23 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child expresses the desire that these contacts continue to be supervised for the time being and occur for a period of two hours and that such contacts occur and be scheduled once or twice a month, taking into account the child's wishes; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and the modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision, taking into account the child's wishes; [ 25 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child wants such contacts to remain supervised for the time being; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES such contacts to be gradually increased if the father's situation remains stable and if the child requests it; [ 27 ] MAINTAINS all other non-incompatible measures; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for A Youth and Family Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE until the child reaches the age of majority, on […], 2017.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Alexandre Lenis / AZ3276 Attorney for the father Me Josée Lefebvre / AX0480 Attorney for the mother Me Sym Davis / AN4187 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Richard Brunet / AZ9927 Attorney for the child TD/vl