2016 QCCQ 11986, 2016 QCCQ 11986

Protection de la jeunesse — 165255 2016 QCCQ 11986 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No. 640-41-001834-149 DATE: September 12, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENISE DESCÔTEAUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her capacity as person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services A, working in City A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Mother and B , residing and domiciled in City B, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 (para. 1), Youth Protection Act , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 YPA). [ 1 ] [Social Worker 1], in her capacity as person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services A, is submitting a motion asking for the review of the last judgment rendered on February 11, 2016 by the Honourable Jean Gravel J.C.Q., concerning the situation of X, 8 years old. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father were absent despite the steps taken by the applicant to make transportation possible. [ 3 ] The child was represented by Mtre.

Constantin Kiryakidis, and the applicant by Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault. [ 4 ] Through her application for review, the applicant is seeking a placement of the child X with the C and D family until she is of full age. [ 5 ] The evidence showed that, since the age of three months, the child has been placed with this family, as soon as placement was deemed necessary. Since February 2015, the child has been living permanently with this family. The child does very well, and is also doing very well at school. Since follow-up began, there has been clear improvement with respect to her behaviour problems. Ms.

C lives in City C and plans to remain there in order to maintain the child’s Aboriginal culture. For the C-D family, the presence of and visits by the parents are important for the child, and they plan to continue to ensure that the child X will be able to see her parents and keep having telephone conversations with them, as well as with her brothers and sisters. [ 6 ] The evidence showed that the father still has serious substance abuse problems and that he has not begun treatment for addiction. Moreover, he does not work and lives in City B. Despite his absence, Mtre. Michel Grenier informed the Court that Mr.

A agreed with the requested placement. [ 7 ] Despite her efforts, the mother has not succeeded in remaining sober. Her behaviour is immature and impulsive. She shows no real motivation or effort to change the situation, in spite of all the steps taken. [ 8 ] The recurrence of their problems and their respective situations make it impossible to imagine that they will be able to take care of and shoulder their responsibilities with respect to the child X. [ 9 ] Taking into consideration the placement history as well as the nature, seriousness and persistence of the facts reported, the

applicant had to take into account the parents’ pasts in her analysis of the family situation. Analysis of all the facts adduced in evidence argues in favour of placing X with a foster family until she is of full age. All of the criteria developed in jurisprudence are met in the present situation. [ 10 ] Placement until full age is always the solution of last resort to provide a child with a stable, reassuring life plan that ensures continuity of care.

To come to the conclusion of the need for such a life plan, the evidence must reveal that the prospects of returning the child to their natural environment are null, that the parents acknowledge the need for such a placement or else that the child has created sufficient emotional and psychological ties with the foster parents for it to be in the child’s interest. [ 11 ] In such a context, the Court must favour keeping X in the present foster family because she has been living there ever since she was a baby and all of her needs are met.

The Court must give priority to the child’s needs and the ties she has created, over time, with her substitute parents. The foster family is the living environment that she has known ever since her first months of life.

Owing to her age, development and interest, the Court allows the applicant’s request. [ 12 ] Moreover, Gravel J. gave a clear instruction in his February 11, 2016 decision : [17] Orders that the child be entrusted to a foster home and that the Court be informed that an alternative life plan will be prepared if the child should not return under the care of her parents. [ 13 ] Considering that the parents are still struggling with their problematic behaviour, considering X’s need to live in a stable home with kind, loving caregivers and considering the desire of C and D to maintain their investment in X, the Court believes that it is in the best interest of the child to live permanently, until she is of full age, with the people who have always been present in her life. [ 14 ] The C-D family’s testimony demonstrated to the Court the love they have for the child and the evidence showed clearly that all effort is made to ensure that the child does well, while giving priority to maintaining contact with her parents and siblings. [ 15 ] Considering the evidence as a whole.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster care of C and D until she is of full age; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and terms of contact between the child and her mother and father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober when they have contact with the child; [ 21 ] ORDERS that contact between X and her siblings be favoured; [ 22 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents certain attributes of parental authority, notably regarding schooling, medical care and documents related to travel, including passport and driver’s licence applications, and entrusts the exercise of these attributes of parental authority to C and D; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court order; [ 25 ] ORDERS that any police officer collaborate in the execution of the present order if required. __________________________________ DENISE DESCÔTEAUX J.C.Q.

Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Counsel for the child Date of hearing: August 5, 2016