2021 QCCQ 16595, 2021 QCCQ 16595

Protection de la jeunesse — 214670 2021 QCCQ 16595 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002451-208 DATE: May 25, 2021 (written judgment rendered on June 23, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, unknown address in Montreal, district of Montreal (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on June 4, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to the foster family of Ms. C until December 4, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and suggests that she be entrusted to a foster family until November 30, 2021.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother was present on May 25, the date fixed for the hearing, but the hearing was postponed on May 27 to give the child’s lawyer a chance to meet with her. At that date, the mother was absent, but she was represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. Considering he was dully served and considering the child’s best interest, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune.

She agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On November 26, 2013 , X was the object of a decision which declared her situation endangered. She was 2 and half years old. The parents get separated in November 2011. X remained with her mother until she was placed in a foster home in September 2013. The parents had alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. The mother started a new relationship, and she was again a victim of violence. The mother had difficulty to provide for her daughter due to her alcohol consumption.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family with progressive reintegration after 3 months if possible, the whole until November 26, 2014. [ 7 ] On July 10, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was still struggling with alcohol consumption issues, but she was on a waiting list to attend a treatment centre. The mother showed a real desire to have a daughter back under her care. She had regular contacts which were positive. The father was in detention.

The Court ordered that the child be placed in a foster home for 6 months with a possible reintegration, the whole until July 10, 2015. [ 8 ] On April 7, 2015 , the Court revised the situation again. X had been placed in a foster family in City A. She had some contacts with her mother. The mother relapsed in her alcohol consumption and did not continue her steps to attend a treatment centre. The Court entrusted the child to a foster home and ordered that a life plan be prepared, the whole until September 30, 2015.

[ 9 ] On November 12, 2015 , the Court revised the situation. After being entrusted to different foster families, the child was reintegrated under her mother’s care. The mother made great improvements, and stopped consuming alcohol. The mother offered a very good collaboration. The Court entrusted the child under her mother’s care until August 17, 2016. [ 10 ] The DYP closed this file until new reports were received and voluntary measures are signed in October 2018 . The mother had relapsed and X was scared about her mother when intoxicated.

The child was entrusted to a foster family with a possible reintegration, the whole for 9 months. These measures were renewed for one year in June 2019 . [ 11 ] On June 4, 2020 , the Court was seized with the situation of the child. X was 9 years old. She was living with her grandmother as a foster parent. The contacts between the mother and the child were irregular. The father was not involved in the child’s situation, but request for contacts. The child has very strong bonds with her grandmother and does not want to go back with her mother, but the child suggested another person to foster her.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] , entrusted her to Ms. C, her grandmother and ordered the DYP to assess Ms. D as potential foster family, the whole until December 4, 2020. [ 12 ] On November 26, 2020 , the Court prolonged the measures under provisional measures. Facts [ 13 ] Following the child’s desire and the Court order, as soon as June 4, 2020, Ms. D was assessed and the evaluation was positive. She was accredited as a foster family and contacts between her and X started on July 6 for a period of 2 weeks. This visit was positive.

X respected the rules and the calendar of contacts between the mother and the child was also respected. [ 14 ] Another visit took place on September 18, 2020, for 2 weeks. As before, everything went very well. [ 15 ] X requested to be moved from her grandmother who lives in City A to Ms. D who lives in City B to be closer to her mother. [ 16 ] The mother’s situation remained the same as she is still struggling with her alcohol consumption issues. Despite numerous requests from the DYP worker, she did not take steps to seek help through the Social Services.

That being said, the mother was able to be sober during each contact with her daughter. [ 17 ] The mother offers a good collaboration with the DYP services, and she is always available to meet with the workers. [ 18 ] Despite the desire to have contacts with his daughter, the father did not call the DYP worker since the last hearing and until recently, his whereabouts were unknown. The DYP worker was able to speak with the father and he confirmed agreeing with the recommended measures as long as it is his child’s desire. [ 19 ] The mother and Ms. D are able to organize together the access and Ms.

D always make sure that the child is safe and not in contact with alcohol consumption. [ 20 ] The steps were started to make the school transfer in City B. [ 21 ] The DYP request for a 6-month-placement with the objective to prepare a life plan at Ms. D’s place. Analysis [ 22 ] The situation of the parents brings the Court to conclude that the situation of the child remain endangered. [ 23 ] The child requested to be moved to Ms. D and for one year she did not change her mind nor Ms. D did.

Both are very happy to be together, and it is in the best interest of the child to be closer to her mother to have more frequent contacts. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child XX, born on [...], 2011, continues to be endangered; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Ms. D as a foster family if she accredited as such; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the fact that Ms.

D is currently in quarantine until May 29, 2021, and that she is not able to have the child with her for now; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the fact that the Director of Youth Protection will entrust the child with another foster family until May 29, 2021; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 27, 2021