2016 QCCQ 12621, 2016 QCCQ 12621

Protection de la jeunesse — 165558 2016 QCCQ 12621 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000492-154 DATE: August 3, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2014 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise and extend the order rendered on December 2, 2015, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present but unrepresented. She wishes to proceed in the file and agrees with the measures suggested by the DYP. She also consents to the filing of the report to value the testimony of their respective author.

Counsel for the child expresses his consent. [ 3 ] Concerning the father, the DYP requests dispense to serve the application to him, since he is untraceable. The DYP attempted a few times to serve him the proceedings through a bailiff unsuccessfully. Moreover, the DYP worker also tried to reach him through his mother, but he never got back to her. For these reasons and in the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed.

The Court will dispense the serving of this application to the father. [ 4 ] The father seems to be living in New Brunswick but has not had any contacts with his son, since the last Court order. [ 5 ] The mother just completed successfully a treatment at the Portage Center from November 20, 2015 to July 7, 2016 for her addiction problems. The program is espe-cially conceived for mothers with children. During that period, they were living together. During her treatment, she really got involved and demonstrated great personal skills. [ 6 ] The mother is also very cooperative with the services.

It’s obvious that she made real changes in her life. She clearly wants the best for her son. She still wants help, and she intends to continue her follow-up for her and to have a future for both of them. [ 7 ] Last September 2015, the mother was involved in a shooting incident in the A community. She is supposed to settle her criminal case in August 2016 for which she faces detention time. During that period, the child will be entrusted to a person that she trusts, her cousin. [ 8 ] Concerning the child, it was observed during the mother’s treatment at Portage, a strong link between him and his mother.

The mother shows good parental capacities. [ 9 ] The child is one-year old. He needs to be secure and in a stable environment. The mother can provide such environment and care for the child’s needs.

[ 10 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. The mother already took major steps to change her lifestyle, and she intends to pursue to do so. She has plans for her future. For the time being, she is in a good path and prioritizes the needs of her child. [ 11 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 13 ] DISPENSES the DYP to serve the application for revision and extension of order to the father; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of Elijah Isaac are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother, until June 30, 2017; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted into a foster family designated by the DYP solely during the period of the mother’s incarceration; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child return in the maternal home environment after the mother’s incarceration is completed; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the father/child contacts take place following an agreement between the parties with supervision of the DYP, if deemed necessary; [ 19 ] TAKES ACT of the consent of the mother to have a follow-up with addiction services; [ 20 ] TAKES ACT of the consent of the mother to benefit from a psychosocial counselling to deal with her personal issues; [ 21 ] TAKES ACT of the consent of the mother, for the child and herself to benefit from an external educator to help with family support; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until June 30, 2017; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Written judgment filed on August 16, 2016