2017 QCCQ 17177, 2017 QCCQ 17177

Protection de la jeunesse — 177661 2017 QCCQ 17177 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001911-152 DATE: October 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Ville A, district A Applicant and A, unknown address City A, district of Montreal Mother and B, residing and domiciled in Ville A, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 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 A (D.Y.P.) submits to the Court a motion for revision of the decision rendered on May 25, 2017, by Honourable judge Lucille Beauchemin, concerning the situation of X, 5 ½ years old. [ 2 ] After declaring that the child’s security and development were still in danger, Judge Beauchemin ordered her foster care.

Now the applicant, Mrs [Social Worker 1], recommends the extension of the placement in a foster family until August 31, 2018. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the father is present and assisted by Me Marianne Léonard. Me Angèle Tommasel represents the absent mother, Me Cassandra Neptune represents the child and Me Aubrée Coutanson, the applicant. [ 4 ] The father admits all the allegations and agrees with the recommendations. Me Tommasel, for the mother, admits only few allegations and disagrees with the measures, but she does not present any defense.

The evidence is completed with the testimony of the social worker, her revision report and the psychological assessment of the child done by Dr Joseph Beltempo. [ 5 ] It is proved that the mother is living City A since the last court hearing and her whereabouts are unknown by the Youth Protection. Her relatives do not know either where she lives City A. The social worker met her once in April and received a phone call from her at the end of April when she asked for a postponement at the end of May.

The revision proceeded on May 25, 2017, and the mother was not present. [ 6 ] The father was released from jail after the last hearing but he did not contact the social worker. Messages were left at his place without success. [ 7 ] The parents did not have any contacts with the child. X remained in the same foster family but the foster parents are overwhelmed by her behaviour. She has tantrums when she feels anxious.

The foster mother is very attached to her and would like to keep her, but she needs support. [ 8 ] The psychologist found out that X shows same symptoms of ambivalent attachment disorder, having been physically abused by both parents and having been through several foster placements. He recommends a structured environment for X where she can obtain weekly individual counseling meetings and group support/structures. The social worker considered that the group home of Kuujuaraapik

could be the good place for X, but she was refused because she is 5. She proposed that the foster parents beneficiate of some respite sending X spend time with her sister Verna who also lives in a foster family in the same community. Adding to that, the child would beneficiate of a psychological follow-up. [ 9 ] The Court believes that the foster parents and the child should receive the service of an external educator. It would support the foster parents, provide them some useful readaptation’s information and would also increase the social skills of the child.

As the child has been through a lot during the last years, as she is very vulnerable and needs a stable and secure surrounding, it is important to provide her all the services in the present foster family to avoid any displacement. [ 10 ] Also, as the evidence reveals that the child reacts strongly to any contact with her parents, as the parents do not offer any collaboration with the social worker and did not seek for any help, the Court suspends the contact of the parents with the child until they proved to the social worker that they are well engage in therapies and collaborating actively with the social worker.

FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2011 are still in danger; [ 13 ] ORDERS her placement in a foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until August 31, 2018; [ 14 ] RECOMMANDS that the D.Y.P. determine a life plan for the child; [ 15 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide to the child and the foster parents the services of an external educator; [ 16 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide to the child all the medical services required and a psychological follow-up; [ 17 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the parents until August 31, 2018; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the social services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 19 ] SUSPENDS the visits rights of the parents with their daughter until they get involved in therapies with the social services and they offer good collaboration in their social follow-up and then; [ 20 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to supervise the contacts between the parents and the child as for modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 21 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this order; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the child Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Me Marianne Léonard Attorney for the father

Date of hearing: August 15, 2017