2017 QCCQ 11831, 2017 QCCQ 11831

Protection de la jeunesse — 175118 2017 QCCQ 11831 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 640-41-001854-147 DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2012 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in City A, [...], Quebec, District A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in City B, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submitted to the Court a motion in revision of the judgment rendered on January 5, 2017 by Judge Lucille Chabot concerning the situation of X, born on [...], 2012.

The applicant asked that the child be entrusted to a foster family until her majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child is represented by Me Yan Massé and Me Adélia Ferreira assisted the applicant. Me Michel Grenier assisted the father. [ 3 ] In the previous judgment, all the five siblings of X were placed in foster families until their majority. For X, as she was entrusted to the foster family of Mrs C and Mr D since March 2017, the placement was extended for six months.

Now, considering the bound between the foster parents and the child, the involvement of the foster parents and the fact that the child is well adapted to the foster parents, the Director of Youth Protection recommended that the Court entrust the child to this foster family until the child turns 18 years old. [ 4 ] The mother admitted the facts alleged in the petition and she agreed with the measures. The father admitted also the facts alleged and agreed with the recommendations. Both parents wanted to have regular contacts with the child.

The father’s situation improved because he is sober since February. [ 5 ] The foster mother testified that the child arrived definitively last March and she is well adapted to them. Mrs C and her husband do not drink nor consume drugs. They are living together for seven years. They are ready to assume the child until her majority and they accept the visit rights of the parents. They also favour the contacts of X with her siblings.

The oldest sister is regularly asked for babysitting. [ 6 ] The child already spent more than half of her life in foster families because of the lack of motivation of the parents to change their way of life. They are both unstable and they have serious problems to work on. The mother still has drinking problems and she did not show any motivation to stop drinking and collaborating with the social worker. The father stopped drinking few months ago, but he is not able to look after X’s needs. [ 7 ] A revision report was filed. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 8 ] GRANTS the motion;

[ 9 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 10 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster family of Mrs C and Mr D until the age of majority; [ 11 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her parents until the child’s majority; [ 12 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visits of the parents to the child (frequency and duration) and FIXES the minimum visits at once a month for four hours for each parent; [ 13 ] ORDERS the parents to always be sober in presence of the child; [ 14 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the father Me Yan Massé Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 6, 2017