2022 QCCQ 11294, 2022 QCCQ 11294

Protection de la jeunesse — 223211 2022 QCCQ 11294 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000656-209 DATE: June 13, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in […]; Applicant and X, born on […], 2020; Child and A, Mother and B, 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection A (the Director) asks the Court to review and extend the decision rendered on June 30, 2021, in the situation of X, two years old. [ 2 ] He asks for the child’s placement in foster home until the age of majority. [ 3 ] The parents are present at the hearing assisted by Me Marie-Josée Ayoub (mother) and Me Justine Bergeron (father).

Me Yan Massé represents the child and Me Magdalena Lempicka the applicant. [ 4 ] The parents disagree with such duration for the placement of X. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that the child remained in the same foster home since March 2021 and she is doing good. [ 6 ] The foster mother and her spouse are attached to the child and are ready to assume the child until her majority. She talked to the parents over the phone when they called X by facetime. The parents have contacts with the child. The child is fine and happy when she comes back.

The mother had so many community workers over the last year for the situation of X that she could not develop a confident relationship. [ 7 ] The coordinator Ms. [Social Worker 1] confirms that there were three different community workers in this file and that the last worker involved left her job last March and the other is on sick leave.

Since then, no services have been offered except for the granting of visits. [ 8 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] is in favor of the child’s placement with the foster parents until the child’s age of majority because the parent’s situation is known since few years, and they have issues with alcohol and unstable relationship.

Also she observed the bond created between the child and the foster parents during a visit. [ 9 ] She cannot declare that there is no possibility for X to return with her parents, because she never observed them together. [ 10 ] Since the departure of the last community worker involved in this situation, she authorized the parents to take the child for the goose break and did not have any report.

The mother had her only for a week because she left for treatment. [ 11 ] She recommends the child’s placement until her majority only because of the bond she observed knowing that X’s brother is living with the father right now. The parent’s improvement is sufficient for the siblings not for this child. [ 12 ] The mother attended treatment for alcohol consumption of six weeks. She finished it last June 16 and she will attend after care follow-up. It is the first time she attended such therapy.

She was ordered last September to attend such treatment but there were some misunderstandings with the community workers.

[ 13 ] The mother did not receive any counselling since April. Before she was meeting them once a month. [ 14 ] The father didn’t attend treatment yet, but he completed all the papers. Since last November, he didn’t do drugs or alcohol. He attended a program of 21 days for agressivity last March 22. [ 15 ] He does not know who is the community worker in charge of X’s situation. He did not receive any counselling over the last three months. [ 16 ] He and his spouse are now seeking services to solve their personal and mental issues. They want their children back with them. [ 17 ] The legislator stated at

Section 91.1 of the YPA [1] that after a 12 months placement for a child under 2 years of age, a long term placement ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age should be ordered. However, the Tribunal may disregard that delay when it is expected that the child will return to his family in a short term, as for failure to provide the services. “ 91.1. If the tribunal orders that a child be entrusted to an alternative living environment under subparagraph e , e .1 or j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period for which the child is so entrusted may not exceed, depending on the child’s age at the time the order is made, ( a ) 12 months if the child is under two years of age; ( b ) 18 months if the child is two to five years of age; or ( c ) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over. To determine the length of that period, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any measure, taken within the framework of this Act, that entrusts the child to an alternative living environment and that is related to the same situation.

It may also take into account the duration of any previous period during which the child was entrusted to an alternative living environment within the framework of this Act, but that is not related to the same situation. A situation means the period from the accepted report to the end of the director’s intervention.

If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order that ensures continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. However, if the interest of the child demands it, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family environment in the short term or if there are serious reasons for doing so.

The fact that services mentioned in an agreement or in an order of the tribunal have not been provided consitutes, among others, a serious reason.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order that ensures continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. ” [ 18 ] Considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court cannot agree with the Director’s recommendations. [ 19 ] The recent progress of the parents, their investment in X by visiting her regularly and providing her the possibility of being with her siblings, the absence of community workers and the fact that there is no intervention plan in evidence, and the lack of assessment of parental skills justify the Court in ordering a shorter placement. [ 20 ] The Court must be able to assess the sincere motivation of the parents to request the services they need in order to be able to offer a stable, secure and warm environment to X. [ 21 ] The Director must establish specific expectations for parents and support them in their efforts to achieve them.

He must also assess their bond with the child and determine if it is strong and positive.

FURTHERMORE, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS her placement in foster home for a period of four months; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director to supervise the visits of the child with her parents (frequency, duration, presence of a third party); [ 26 ] ORDERS the parents to engage in treatment for their substance abuse issues including aftercare follow-ups; [ 27 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her parents for nine months; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the Director; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to share and obtain information concerning the parents with the professional providing them services; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed on July 11, 2022 __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Magdalena Lempicka Me Magdalena Lempicka Counsel for the applicant Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique a Counsel for the child Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub Avocats inc Counsel for the mother Justine Bergeron Yves Ménard Avocats inc Counsel for the father Date of hearing: June 13, 2022 [1] Youth Protection Act 2006, c. 34, s. 63 ; 2017, c. 18 , s. 69; 2022, c. 11 , s. 55.