2014 QCCQ 5458, 2014 QCCQ 5458

Protection de la jeunesse — 1467 2014 QCCQ 5458 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 615-41-001868-131 DATE: January 22, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...] MRS [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker, exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse of A , having a place of business at [...] at City of A , District A , [...] Petitioner and MRS A, residing and domiciled, in City of B , Province A , [...] Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled at [...] in City of A , District A , [...] Father and MRS C, residing and domiciled at [...] in City of A , District A , [...] Grandmother, third party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1] , delegate of the Director of Youth Protection for the District A , seizes the Court with a petition asking that the security and development of X , 7 years old, be declared in danger because of the neglect to provide the child with schooling, risk of neglect and serious behavioural disturbances (

section 38 (b) (1) (iii), (2) and (

f) Y.P.A. ). [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child is represented by Me Mylène Grondin. The parents are absent, even if duly served. The paternal grandmother, who has the legal guardianship, is present, assisted by Me Sylvie Gourd. Me Valérie Martel represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] Considering that the paternal grandmother assumes the child, she is granted the status of a party according to section 81 (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 4 ] The grandmother admits that the security and development of X are compromised because of his behavioural problems. She denies the neglect and the risk of neglect.

The child makes many admissions. The evidence of the compromising state of the child is completed by the testimonies of the Director of A School , the foster family, Mrs [Social Worker 2] , and Mrs [Social Worker 1] , the social worker. [ 5 ] Different reports are filed under

section 294.1 C.P.C. There are a

summary report from A Family Services , an assessment of speech language pathology, a report from the teacher at A School , a report from D and one of E . [ 6 ] In defence, the grandmother testifies. [ 7 ] Upon analysis of this evidence, it is proven that the child's parents are unable to assume their parental responsibilities because of their personal problems, that since the age of […] , the child has been entrusted to various foster families, and that since May 2012, his grandmother obtained his legal guardianship. [ 8 ] The child suffers from attachment disorder, anxiety and attention deficit disorder with hyper-activity.

He is medicated since last June, but his grandmother does not follow the dosage. The child is oppositional, insecure and easily disorganized. He may easily screams, hits and throws objects. It is very hard to control him at school and the grandmother is overwhelmed. [ 9 ] To avoid double punishment, the school authority stopped to report the misconduct of the child at school. Even if they tried to work with the grandmother, it is impossible to have her collaboration. [ 10 ] Since September 13, 2013, because of the grandmother's state and the child's behaviour, he is entrusted in a foster family.

[ 11 ] The grandmother who was living in a 3 ½ rooms apartment, moved in a 1 ½ rooms apartment. She has different problems, such as : financial, alcohol consumption and gambling. [ 12 ] The grandmother wants her son, the child's father, to be present in the child's life. Even if she is aware it might cause anxiety to X , she let the father baby-sits the child during a visit on October 5, 2013. She left them and went out to play bingo. The child's father was with his girlfriend and they made love in presence of the child.

On March 26, during another visit, the child witnessed a violent physical aggression between his father and the grandmother. She had a lacerated mouth and a broken tooth. [ 13 ] The child was scared and he still talks about the incident. The father's interventions have negative impact the child. [ 14 ] Many various inadequate reactions of the grandmother towards the child were proven.

She is not able to prioritize the child's needs and she tries to force meetings between her son and her grandson. [ 15 ] Considering all those facts, the Court declares the security and development of X in danger fall the alleged motives. [ 16 ] On applicable measures, the grandmother asks to have her grandson back with her even if she works in Province of A and has to leave for 14 days. She found a babysitter for him, a lady working at school. But, that lady is not present at the hearing and there is no evidence of the child's problems knowledge she has.

Also, the grandmother does not have an adequate place to assume the child. She lives in her son's apartment. [ 17 ] She might get a bigger apartment soon. The grandmother does not acknowledge all the child's problems and their causes. She always related them to the mother. She is unable to report responsibilities to his son. [ 18 ] The grandmother does not agree with the social worker, the school director and the teacher's analysis. She does not accept confrontation.

She agrees to receive counselling of the social worker at the A Centre, but wants to control the meetings. [ 19 ] Considering the non-involvement of the parents, the grandmother will have to comply in the future with the recommendations provided by the social worker if she wants the child's reintegration.

She will have to respect the child's medication and makes the child's needs her priority, not the one of X 's father. [ 20 ] Consequently, the Court orders that the child be placed in a foster family for nine months, and considering the grandmother's consent, orders her psychological assessment. [ 21 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 22 ] DECLARES the security and development of the child X in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS the placement of the child X in a foster family for a period of nine months; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child, his grandmother and his parents for a period of nine months; [ 25 ] ORDERS the psychological assessment of Mrs C in a short delay with an evaluation of her parental capacities and to receive an individual follow up if needed; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visit rights and access of the grandmother with the child (duration, frequency and presence of third party if needed); [ 27 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the parents' visit rights and to make them conditional to their implication in the social follow up; [ 28 ] WITHDRAWS the parental authorities and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all medical, school and social authorizations required for the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Valérie Martel, attorney for the applicant Me Sylvie Gourd, attorney for the grandmother Me Mylène Grondin, attorney for the child

Date of hearing: November 26 and 28, 2013