2018 QCCQ 19370, 2018 QCCQ 19370

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810811 2018 QCCQ 19370 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000740-172 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 22, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, [...] Applicant and A, [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 May 24, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2016. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to Ms. B until he reaches the age of majority. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the mother is not reachable for many months. The child has medical issues. The mother has to approve the treatment, but she is not there to sign for it.

Also, the foster family would like to travel with the child, but without the signature of the mother, it’s not possible to obtain a passport. [ 3 ] The mother, even if dully served is absent to the court hearing. Considering the interest of the child, the Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The child who is now 2 years old is absent but represented by Me Léonard. After hearing the evidence, the child’s lawyer recommends to the Court to grant the application and the measures. Historical situation [ 5 ] On March 2, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court.

At that time, he was 4 months old and had been found in a hotel in Town A with intoxicated persons. The mother who was very young, consumed alcohol and drugs for many years. The mother was in a toxic relationship with a man 25 years older than her. He was controlling and abusive with her. She absolutely needs him for financial support but considering the impact of their relation on the security of the child, the Court asked her to choose between her boyfriend and her baby.

The Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family with a progressive reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it. The Court also ordered frequent contact with the mother. [ 6 ] On July 19, 2017 , Justice Beauchemin reviewed the decision. The child was doing well in the foster family. The situation of the mother remained the same, drugs, alcohol, unstable and violent relationship with the same boyfriend. Despite her many issues she maintained contact with her son almost on a daily basis.

The Court maintained the child in foster family until May 1, 2018. [ 7 ] On May 24, 2018 , the DYP asked the Court to entrust the child until he reaches his majority. The mother’s situation remained the same and she was pregnant. She consented to this request. X was doing very well in the foster family and the Court entrusted him to Ms. B until he reaches his majority.

Facts [ 8 ] The present application is justified by the facts that the child needs medical care and despite many attempts made by the DYP worker to locate the mother and to communicate with her, it’s still not possible to reach her. [ 9 ] X has frequent ear infections that were resistant to the antibiotics. Ms. B would like to have him seen by a pediatrician down

south when she goes for vacation. [ 10 ] X is developing very well. He is going to daycare in Town B where he is in contact with [Language A] and English languages. [ 11 ] He is very well integrated to Ms. B’s family and he is very attached to her. Ms. B describes him as “a very intelligent boy. He is a happy child, but he can get very angry.” As she mentions to the worker, she would like him to practise martial arts when he will be older to channel his aggression and strength. And also, as mentioned, she would like him to see a pediatrician and a psychologist.

Analysis [ 12 ] The evidence reveals that X is very well taken care under Ms. B’s care. When Justice Lemoine rendered her decision in May 2018, the mother was still involved. Sadly, actually she is not reachable and the DPY suspected that she would be living in another province. [ 13 ] The child needs health care services and considering the absence of the mother, it’s totally justified that Ms. B could consent to the medical care for his well-being.

She also has the right to travel and to make the child benefit from those trips. [ 14 ] The Court has no hesitation to withdraw the attributes of parental authority from the mother and to grant it to Ms. B. It’s in the best interest of the child. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application; [ 16 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on May 24, 2018; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2016, are still in danger; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family chosen by an institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely Ms.

B, until he reaches the age of majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol consumption issues as well as her relationship issues; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, the mother and Mr.

C be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision; [ 24 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and granted to the Director of Youth Protection or any other person designated by the Court such as Ms.

B namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2034. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the child Date of hearing: October 31, 2018