2012 QCCQ 19300, 2012 QCCQ 19300

Protection de la jeunesse — 128435 2012 QCCQ 19300 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001249-090 DATE: October 16, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in City A APPLICANT and X, born on […], 2001 CHILD and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is presenting the Court with a motion to review a judgment rendered on June 1, 2012 whereby the foster placement of X was ordered till majority. [ 2 ] The sole objective of the motion is to modify the foster family the child will be entrusted to, considering that the foster home designated in the previously rendered judgment refuses to play that role any longer. [ 3 ] The decision mainly results from the youth’s attitude.

As a matter of fact, he has started to show behaviour problems, in particular, not observing house rules and not attending school regularly. [ 4 ] Therefore, in the month of June 2012, the child was withdrawn from the foster family and successively entrusted to two new foster homes. [ 5 ] Since then, he has been residing at Mr.

C along with the man’s two children and his nephew. [ 6 ] The current process, as mentioned earlier, is basically aimed at establishing whether this new place of residence, where he could be fostered in the long term, is appropriate for the youth. [ 7 ] To this end, an evaluation was carried out by the Director of Youth Protection.

The conclusion reached was that the said environment was adequate, safe and favourable to meeting X’s needs. [ 8 ] Incidentally, both parents and the child himself, all duly assisted by counsel, agree that there still is an endangered situation and that the proposed foster family is adequate. [ 9 ] Some concerns were raised as to the ability of Mr. C to act as a foster father since he had been through a mental health episode in the past. [ 10 ] In this respect, the applicant filed a letter from the psychiatrist who had treated him at the time. It is therein indicated that Mr.

C has known a stable remission for approximately two and a half years and that, accordingly, nothing makes him believe that the man could not act as a foster family. [ 11 ] Generally speaking, the evidence, as presented to the Court, does not suggest in any way that we should be concerned over that matter. [ 12 ] The Social Worker, in her testimony, considers that the information is part of the file and that it must be kept in mind just like

any other characteristic, but that no particular attention or precaution is required. [ 13 ] From the evidence, including the testimony of Mr. C, the Court is satisfied that the latter can provide an acceptable foster home to X.

In that sense, it is therefore proper to give way to the recommendation of the Youth Protection Director. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster family of C until his majority; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions rendered previously, if not obsolete. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the child Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the father Date of hearing: September 25, 2012