2011 QCCQ 10879, 2011 QCCQ 10879

Protection de la jeunesse — 112528 2011 QCCQ 10879 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth Division” DATE: May 04, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : 610-41-000336-073 X 2000[…] ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], a.r.h., duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, in city A, district A, province of Quebec.

Applicant -and- A, domiciled and residing in city B, district A, province of Quebec. Mother -and- B , domiciled and residing in city C, district A, province of Quebec. Father ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Considering the clerical error on the judgment of the undersigned, dated on April 20, 2011; [ 2 ] Considering the existence of

section 475 of the CCP; [ 3 ] Considering that the initial judgment has already been served to the parties; [ 4 ] THE COURT : [ 5 ] RECTIFIES two of the orders as follow : ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a reception center, for a period of 18 months, and RECOMMENDS that the youth be maintained at Residence A, and entrusted to the care of C, Executive Director of Residence A, if the youth evolution allows it; ORDERS that a person who is working for an institution or body, provides aid counselling or assistance to the child and his family, for a period of 18 months ; [ 6 ] ORDERS the service of this judgment upon the parties.

__________________________________ JOSÉE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Attorney for the D.Y.P.

M e Marc Ouimette Attorney for the child M e Imane Kamal Attorney for the mother JB4289 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth Division” DATE: April 20, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : 610-41-000336-073 X 2000[…] ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], a.r.h., duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, in city A, district A, province of Quebec.

Applicant -and- A, domiciled and residing in city B, district A, province of Quebec. Mother -and- B , domiciled and residing in city C, district A, province of Quebec. Father

______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sections 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [1] [The social worker 2] (in replacement of [social worker 1]), duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, asks the Court to revise the decision rendered on March 29 th , 2010, by the judge Gilles Gendron, J.C.Q., concerning X, born on […], 2000 : “ FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: GRANTS the petitions; MAINTAINS that the security and development of X are still endangered; PROLONGS the child’s placement in a rehabilitation center for a period of six months with a progressive reintegration into a foster home; ORDERS the child not come into contact with Mr.

B, unless the child strongly requests it and only if the director evaluates that it will be in his best interest (Section 91 (

d) YPA); MAINTAINS all other measures rendered in the previous decision; ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the director for the enforcement of this order; ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of the present order.” [2] At the hearing, the child is represented by Me Marc Ouimette, the mother by Me Imane Kamal, and the petitioner by Me Julie Lemire. [3] The father is absent. [4] Me Lemire, for the petitioner, asks the Court to order that the child be entrusted to the care of C, Executive Director of Residence A for a period of 18 months. [The social worker 2], for the Director of Youth Protection, explains that a 18 months period is necessary in order to let the child finish school. [5] Me Kamal, for the mother, agrees with the recommendations made by the DYP. [6] Me Ouimette, for the child, states that his client is very happy at Residence A. [ 7 ] [The social worker 2] testifies on behalf of the petitioner.

She explains that the mother and her siblings have supervised contacts with the child.

For the purpose of those contacts, the child resides in a foster family in CITY D, and he goes visiting the mother and her family. [ 8 ] The DYP plans a return of the child in a foster family after the 18 months in the reception center. [ 9 ] [The social worker 2] adds that even if the child displays behavioural disturbances, a 18 months period is realistic to evaluate the situation and start a return of the child in a foster family, if the situation and the child best interests allow it. [ 10 ] X suffered many rejections as he was expelled from different foster families.

Residence A is a group home which offers specialised services to children like X. [ 11 ] [The social worker 2] adds, that’s not in the child best interests to be in contact with his father Mr B until Mr B’s situation changes and that he shows a true interest for his child. [ 12 ] C, Executive Director of Residence A, testifies. He explains what is Residence A about, and which specialised sources are available. Residence A is a reception center. [ 13 ] Mr C explains that many programs are available at Residence A.

For instance, there’s a program for social skills, one for anger management, etc. [ 14 ] He’s ready to take care of X for a period of 18 months and even more. For instance, if X is not ready to return in a foster family after the expiration of that period he could stay at Residence A. [ 15 ] Considering all the evidence. [ 16 ] Considering the child best interests and the fact that he needs stability. [ 17 ] FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 18 ] GRANTS the petition;

[ 19 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 2000, are still in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a reception center and recommends that the youth be maintained at Residence A, and entrusted to the care of C, Executive Director of Residence A, if the youth evolution allow it; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take and active

part in the participation of any measures; [ 22 ] ORDERS that all the contacts with the parents as well as with other members of the family, be supervised according to the frequency and conditions determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person who is working for an institution or body, provides aid counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 24 ] ORDERS that any peace officer collaborates for the execution of the present order; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the professionals involved in the file, be permitted to exchange information; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the youth has regular visits in the foster home; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child not be in contact with Mr B, unless the child strongly requests it, and only if the Director evaluates that it will be in the best interest of the youth; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the enforcement of this order. __________________________________ JOSÉE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Marc Ouimette Attorney for the child M e Imane Kamal Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: February 24, 2011