2022 QCCQ 14185, 2022 QCCQ 14185

Protection de la jeunesse — 228996 2022 QCCQ 14185 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000999-208 DATE: November 15, 2022 (written judgment only) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and C Mother and D Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 December 8, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and ordered that the child remain entrusted to his current foster family until September 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return X to his parents and that the placement in his current foster family must be prolonged until he reaches his majority. [ 3 ] X has siblings, Y, Z, A, and B. The Court is also seized with their situation. Position of the parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Ève Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered.

She agrees with the placement but contests the duration. She asks that her child be reintegrated as soon as possible. [ 5 ] The father was mostly present but missed some days. He is represented by Me Nada Boumeftah. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered, and he has the same position as the mother. [ 6 ] The child is absent but represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett and Jean-Bernard Terrisse. After hearing the evidence, Me Terrisse submits to the Court that the situation of the child continues to be endangered and that a placement is in his best interest.

Me Terrisse submits that the placement should not be until the child reaches his majority as the mother had been able to improve her situation. History of the situation [ 7 ] On January 28, 2020 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. In July 2019, the father assaulted the mother, and the 2 youngest children were injured. In October 2019, the mother moved to Town A with B, Z and X. Y and A were cared for by their maternal grandmother and her ex-boyfriend, Mr E and finally only by Mr E due to the grandmother’s alcohol consumption. The father was detained from July to November 2019.

After his release, he took care of Y, A and X (brought back from Town A), but he continued to consume alcohol daily. The baby X was neglected by the father regarding his health needs. In December 2019, the father left for Town A with the 3 children and few days later, the DYP was informed that the parents consumed alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine daily and they got into fights. As of January 6, 2020, all the children were entrusted to a foster family under provisional measures.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family until January 31, 2021. [ 8 ] On December 8, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. Since the last decision, B remained with Mr E, Y and A were together in a foster home in Town A and X and Z were also together in another foster family in Town A. The parents came back living up North.

They recognized not being able to resume the care of their children but wanted that the 4 youngest be entrusted to a foster family in Town B. The Court reminded that the children were entrusted in Town A because the parents were there and di not have the intention to back up North. Doing so, the contacts were facilitated. When the parents came back in Town B in June 2020, the children were entrusted for 6 months. The Court insisted on the importance to regularly assess the possibility to entrust Native children close to their community according to the federal law.

The Court entrusted B to Mr E, and the 4 youngest to their current foster family. The Court ordered the DYP to take the necessary steps to find a foster family in Town B for the children. Facts 1- The mother's situation [ 9 ] The mother continued to live in Town B. [ 10 ] She took steps to attend Town C a first time but had to renounce because she did not want to be at the same time of another specific person. She attended another session and succeeded in July 2021. [ 11 ] The Town C worker testifies about the mother's motivation and involvement in the process.

She participates to the pre-care and post-care follow-up and communicates minimally once a week with the addiction worker to have support. [ 12 ] She is not totally sober, but she does not consume at her place. B is living with her, and she does not want him seeing her intoxicated. She is also able to protect A and Y who visit her everyday. If she is intoxicated, she tells them not to come. [ 13 ] Her efforts to maintain her sobriety make her to be more isolated but she accepts that. She does it for her and for her children.

She sews to occupy her free time and she loves that. [ 14 ] The DYP worker recognized the efforts made by the mother by attending a treatment center, but she considers that the mother did not demonstrate yet that she can maintain her efforts on a long period of time. [ 15 ] Concerns were raised about the conflictual relationship that she has with the father. The mother asserts that she feels stronger now, and she considers able to set her limits.

The house is under her name, and she will not hesitate to ask him to leave if he consumes or does not respect her. [ 16 ] The mother admits some relapses since she left Town C but the evidence shown that she is much more in control of her consumption. [ 17 ] In December 2021, the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures due to B's behavioural issues. The DYP asked that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center.

After hearing the evidence, the Court maintained the adolescent under his mother's care with strict conditions. [ 18 ] At the continuation of the hearing, the Court heard the evidence that those conditions were respected and the DYP did not ask anymore for a placement in rehabilitation center. 2- The father's situation [ 19 ] The father does not collaborate with the DYP and his exact situation is unknown. [ 20 ] He lives few months in Town A.

He attended some days of the hearing while he stopped in Town D on his travelling between Town A and Town B, but when it was his turn to testify, he refused to come at the Court House even if he was in the same village. [ 21 ] The other information that the DYP obtained are the following: he had been detained for a while since the last order, he lost his job and he had been evicted from his apartment in Town A. [ 22 ] The DYP would like to meet with him to know more about his situation, but he is difficult to be reached. 3- Situation of Z ans X [ 23 ] The foster parents were present and testified.

First, they confirm their willingness to continue to foster Z and X until they reach their majority. They are obviously very attached to those children. [ 24 ] Z started going to school and he is doing well. [ 25 ] X needs more specific attention, but he is well adapted to his environment and to his foster family. He should receive service from a psychotherapist and speech therapist soon. [ 26 ] The foster parents also confirm that the contacts with the parents are going well but there is not much communication between the foster parents and the parents.

They are convinced that the parents have their phone number, but they do not understand why they do not communicate more regularly. [ 27 ] On her side, the mother asserts that she asked many times the DYP to have the foster parents' phone number, but she never received any answer. The DYP worker present at the hearing confirms that she did not give the phone number and she ignores if her collaborator in Town A did. [ 28 ] The DYP worker admits that no video calls had been organized.

She is ready to start organizing that. [ 29 ] Regarding the cultural aspect, the foster parents commit to travel up North 4 times a year. They watch videos on YouTube and

they registered the children in a native daycare.

They would have participated to more activities, but they were prevented due to Covid- 19 restrictions. [ 30 ] In their environment, the children are not surrounded by any other Inuit children, and they do not have contact with the Inuktitut language. [ 31 ] The DYP asks for a long-term placement because: - The maximum delays of placement are reached, - Despite the mother's efforts, the parents' situation is not enough stabilized and won't be in a near future, - The children are attached to their new environment and foster family, - The children have no attach in the North, - The children need a life plan. [ 32 ] The DYP explained the steps taken to find a foster family up North.

Verifications were made with the foster department in at least 3 times since the last decision. The DYP had been able to find one to foster Y and A and it is the reason why they came back up North, but the DYP had been unable to find a foster family for Z and X. Also, the DYP did not want to separate them and the parents neither. [ 33 ] The mother expresses her sadness to have so few contacts with her children. She misses them and she deplores that the contacts are so short (2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon) which prevent her from having time to organize activities.

Also, she saw that Z is losing her Inuktitut. Analysis [ 34 ] As admitted by the parents, the situation of the child continues to be endangered. [ 35 ] The DYP asks for a long-term placement. The parents agree with the placement but contest the duration. The children's lawyer invites the Court to disregard the maximum delay of placement. [ 36 ] Indeed, the first question is to know if the maximum delay imposed by the YPA is reach or not and in the situation of the 2 children the delay is indeed reached. [ 37 ] The Bill C-92 is also applicable in this situation.

Contrary to the YPA, the Bill C-92 does not establish any maximum delay of placement before a long-term placement be ordered. [ 38 ] The Court also keep in mind that the DYP was requested to take the necessary step to find a foster family in Town B and to proceed with such verification regularly.

The Court is aware about the difficulty to find a foster family for young children in the North and the evidence cannot allow to conclude that those verification would not have been done. [ 39 ] The children's lawyer invites the Court to disregard the maximum delay establish by the YPA because the plan suggested by the DYP does not allow the children to maintain a strong link with their cultural heritage. [ 40 ] The Court acknowledges that the children are very well taken care, that they are loved and that the foster parents are doing everything they can to provide them with a very good environment. [ 41 ] The Court also acknowledges that during that time, the children developed strong bonds with their foster parents and that is totally normal.

They need such attachment for their development. [ 42 ] But the Court must consider the whole plan and verify if this plan answers the totality of the children's needs. [ 43 ] Z and X are Native children. Doing so, they have a fundamental right to be kept in touch with their cultural heritage, and that cannot be done only by watching videos on Youtube.

The foster parents have very good intention, and they demonstrated their willingness to travel up North, to benefit from different services from Aboriginal organizations, but in the facts, the contact with the Inuit culture for the children is very weak. [ 44 ] This aspect being missing from the plan suggested by the DYP, and according to the criteria's established by the Court of appeal [2] , the Court considers that the DYP did not fulfill his burden to offer an adequate life plan to the Court. [ 45 ] Moreover, the Court cannot ignore the great improvement made by the mother and her willingness to continue that way.

The Court was authorized to prolong the period of advisement in this situation and during that time, the children were maintained in their foster family. The Court hope that the mother used this time to continue to improve her situation. [ 46 ] Unfortunately, the parents and particularly the mother who appears more concerns, did not have the opportunity to develop her bonds with her children. That is another right of the children that was not respected.

Those bonds must be developed and the only one way to proceed is by increasing the physical contacts and the communication by video calls. [ 47 ] The suggested plan not being adequate, the Court will allow another period to put in place the contacts and to give time to the DYP to reassess the situation. During that period, the contacts with the parents, at least with the mother will have to be organize. The contacts are described in the conclusion of the decision.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 48 ] GRANTS the application; [ 49 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still endangered; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mr. F and Ms. G until March 31, 2023; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform the organisation of their current situation; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child is in danger; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 55 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services, or another resource deemed appropriate concerning their substance abuse, personal and marital issues; [ 56 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointment with professionals and their level of involvement with the services provided; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, the parents and the siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for modalities, and degree of supervision with the following frequency: - 4 physical contacts a year in the North, - Physical contacts in Town A as often as the mother has the opportunity to go there, - Weekly video calls [ 58 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services that his situation require; [ 59 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s parents until March 31, 2023; [ 60 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly-Ann Sinnet and Me Jean-Bernard Terrisse, attorneys for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 23, 24 and 29, 2021 November 15 and 23, 2021 December 10, 2021 January 28, 2022,