2012 QCCQ 7947, 2012 QCCQ 7947

Protection de la jeunesse — 121670 2012 QCCQ 7947 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000395-118 DATE: April 24, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in CITY A Applicant v.

A , residing and domiciled in CITY B, district A, province of Quebec Mother and B , residing and domiciled in CITY B, district A, province of Quebec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Court was submitted with a motion for review under sections 95 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act concerning the situation of the child X, born on […], 2010. [ 2 ] Both parents were present at the hearing.

The father was represented by Me Marie-Claude Degagné and the mother was not represented by counsel. Me Mathieu Brassard represented the child. II- THE FACTS [ 3 ] On February 22, 2011, the child was placed in foster care for a period of six (6) months with possible reintegration with the parents if the situation allowed. [ 4 ] In fact, the child was placed just a few weeks after his birth. At that time a medical examination revealed that he was developmentally delayed due to a lack of stimulation. It was believed that he might even be blind and deaf.

The back of his head was flattened for spending too much time on his back. He had two fractured ribs. In the doctor's opinion, these fractures were caused by the baby being mishandled and there was a high likelihood that he had been shaken. [ 5 ] On August 17, 2011, the Honourable Nancy McKenna ordered the extension of the foster placement for a period of six (6) months. The same decision concluded that the child's brother would be placed in foster care until majority. [ 6 ] In the past few months, the child had to face many health and development challenges.

The foster mother had him do many exercises to build up his stomach muscles. The child had to undergo intensive physiotherapy and ergotherapy. In the current environment, he receives a lot of stimulation. Consequently, after much work, he has succeeded in catching up with his development delay. [ 7 ] Since the last Court hearing, it has been difficult to get collaboration from the parents. The first appointment with Youth Protection was on September 13, 2011. The mother refused to address her drinking issue. She actually left the meeting and refused to collaborate.

The father remained at the meeting but his collaboration with the Social Worker was mitigated. [ 8 ] On October 14, 2011, the mother asked to see her son Y while she was in city A for medical care. She did not ask to see the child X. The worker, Mr. [social worker 2], agreed to a supervised visit on the following morning. She never showed up to see her son. When the worker asked her for explanations a few days later, she answered she was visiting family and could not come. [ 9 ] On November 13, 2011, the mother asked to have a visit with her child X for his birthday.

On November 25, a meeting was organized to plan the visit. The parents were offered three days so they could see the child more than once. The father asked for only one

night without any further explanations. On December 14, the parents had two supervised visits with their children and everything went well. [ 10 ] On January 24, 2012, a visit was organized between the mother and the children. The visit was cancelled due to the mother’s absence. III - ANALYSIS [ 11 ] Since the last Court order, the main objectives of Youth Protection were to gain collaboration from the mother who in the past had not complied with the measures ordered by the Court. [ 12 ] The issues the parents are dealing with today remain the same. The relationship between the parents is very unstable.

The mother constantly leaves the father for a few days and returns when it pleases her. There is a lack of consistency and stability in their relationship. During the follow-up with Youth Protection, the mother did not collaborate whenever her alcohol problem was discussed. She then became angry and would not cooperate. [ 13 ] According to the evidence, the parents did not show commitment to visit their son regularly. They did not attend scheduled meetings with the Youth Protection Worker regularly either. [ 14 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act limits the duration of a foster care measure to twelve (12) months for children two years of age and younger.

According to the law, at the end of this period the Court must render an order aimed at ensuring continuous care as well as stable relationships and living conditions for the child. [ 15 ] From the case law developed on that matter, two conditions must be met before the Court can render a decision aimed at providing continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions to the child on a permanent basis. − The probability of the child's return with his family is minimal in the short term; − The existence of a life project whereby the child is able to adapt and bond with his new family. [1] [ 16 ] In order to satisfy to the second condition, the Court must verify the long-term commitment of the foster family to the child as well as the level of attachment of the child to his new family. [ 17 ] In the case at bar, the evidence shows that the child would be at high risk of neglect if he were returned to his biological environment.

The child shows signs of foetal alcohol syndrome and needs a care giver who can meet all his needs. The child was able to overcome the obstacles he encountered very early in life. His parents were unable to meet his physical needs and even less his emotional needs. He showed signs of severe neglect.

Since foster cared, he has improved on many development levels. [ 18 ] Considering the services offered to the parents and the amount of time given them to resolve their personal issues, the Court is of the opinion that the probabilities of the child returning to his family environment are practically nil in a reasonable time frame. [ 19 ] The child has been living with his foster mother for more than twelve (12) months. The foster mother has fostered many children over the last few years. The Court granted that X's sibling Y be also entrusted to her until majority. Mrs.

C provides the child with a loving and caring environment. She always makes sure that the child and the other children's needs are being met. She also encourages contacts with the parents in the hope they can maintain an amicable relationship for the future. [ 20 ] Considering the specific needs of the child and the above-mentioned evidence concerning the child's foster family, the Court is convinced it is in the best interest of X to be placed in a foster family until majority, provided he remains in the care of Mrs.

C. [ 21 ] FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REASONS THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] REVIEWS the decision given on August 17, 2011; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family until majority; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the child until he reaches majority; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise contacts between the child and the parents as to the terms and conditions; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment.

__________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. Me Mathieu Brassard For the child Me Marianne Bourget-Gagnon For the applicant Me Marie-Claude Degagné For the father Date of hearing : February 21, 2012