2021 QCCQ 15241, 2021 QCCQ 15241

Protection de la jeunesse — 219047 2021 QCCQ 15241 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002536-206 DATE: October 20, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C.

Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 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 (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on October 23, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2020.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family with a gradual reintegration of the child into the care of her father, if and when the situation allows it, until October 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and asks that the child be entrusted to Ms. C, until March 31, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The parents are absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. They agree that the Court proceed in their absence.

They recognize that the security and development of their child are still endangered and they agree with the measures. [ 4 ] The child is 13 months old. She is represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. On her client’s behalf, Me Tommasel submits that her situation is still endangered and that the recommended measures are in her best interest. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On October 23, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The parents admit having alcohol and drugs consumption issues as well as conjugal violence issues.

The mother recognized that she had consumed drugs and alcohol until the end of pregnancy. Indeed, the mother was brought to the hospital by ambulance due to her high level of intoxication by drugs (cannabis and cocaine) and by alcohol. By security, the medical staff induced labour. The child was transferred to the intensive care under morphine treatment. It took 5 days for the parents before visiting the child. After 9 days, the child was discharged and entrusted to the father with supervised visits for the mother. Despite that, the mother was found in a hotel room, intoxicated and alone with the baby.

The day after, the DYP took an immediate protective measure and entrusted the child to a foster family, but the child went there only 11 days after. During that time, she remains with her parents and the mother assaulted the father who had the child in his arms. The mother reject the child and mentioned that the baby was supposed to be traditionally adopted by her sister. The father is collaborative and would like to take care of the child.

The mother had a regular follow-up with the Social Services. [ 6 ] The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family. The Court authorized a reintegration with the father if the situation allows it, the whole until October 31, 2021. Facts [ 7 ] The child arrived in Town A in November 2020. She was entrusted to the specialized foster family. During that time, the parents never requested any visit with the child. They just mentioned that they want their child to be adopted by a paternal cousin. Due to

the parents’ non-involvement, and considering the lack of resources and the lack of places, the child was transferred to the specialized foster family in Town B. The parents took no steps to see their child and never mentioned anything about the potential adoption. [ 8 ] On May 7, 2020, during a Youth Protection intervention made at Ms. C’s place, the DYP was made aware that she went in Town B and brought back the child with her in Town A.

The Court questioned the DYP worker present to know how it was possible for this lady to enter in a specialized foster family, to leave with a child and to travel from Town B to Town A without having any authorization to do so. The DYP worker present is not the worker assigned to this file. Before the Court, he took steps to understand the situation, but as there is no evolution notes, it was impossible for him to know and to inform the Court. [ 9 ] The DYP had to intervene that day because Ms.

C was intoxicated in the presence of 2 children (X and her grandson) and she had a conflict with her adult daughter also intoxicated. The 2 children were entrusted to a foster family for the night and the day after, Ms. C apologized for what happened. This event was the only one, but it is important to note that she had been followed for several years by the Youth Protection and the file was closed in April 2021, considering her great improvement. Ms. C express being open to receive a follow-up. [ 10 ] The child is not attending daycare because Ms. C wants to take care of her.

It is obvious that the child developed strong bonds with Ms. C. She answers her needs properly and she is able to reassure the child when needed. [ 11 ] The child is in good health, but on January 8, 2021, a doctor from Town A made a referral for a physical therapy. The DYP ignores why and if it is done. [ 12 ] The parents are already followed by the Youth Protection services for their older children. In those situations, they collaborate with the services, but in the situation of X, they do not collaborate at all. They always mention that X is not their daughter, she is the one of Ms.

C. [ 13 ] Despite the parents’ non-involvement in the child’s life, they are always available to give any authorization when needed for the child. [ 14 ] Since the last decision, the parents continued to struggle with alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. The police had to intervene at their place a few times. They did not take any steps to address their issues. Analysis [ 15 ] The situation of the child obviously remains endangered. The parents are not involved at all in her life. They want her to be adopted and they choose the adoptive parent.

The parents still struggling with the same issues as before. [ 16 ] The Court cannot explain how the potential adoptive mother was able to leave with the child from a secure place as a specialized foster family. The situation is very worrisome, and the facts that no notes are produced in the child’s file to explain the situation is much more worrisome. Luckily, nothing wrong happened. [ 17 ] The child is still not registered at the Directeur de l’État civil. Doing so, the adoption process could not be started. The Court reminds the DYP worker about the importance to seize the Court in such situation.

Indeed, any child has the right to be properly registered right after the birth and has the right to have a birth certificate and a medical card. No child has to wait 13 months for the parents to take such steps or to wait that the application for revision be presented in the file. [ 18 ] Moreover, the Court reminds the importance to file some documents to attest the right spelling of the name of the child. In this file, the Court has no declaration of birth nor any other medical documents to confirm the name of the child chosen by the parents.

The only information the Court has is the fact that the parents never mentioned anything about the spelling of the child name on the Court application. Doing so, the Court will order the DYP to register the child with those informations. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2020, are still endangered; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms.

C; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. be given the power to fill the birth declaration concerning the child X, born on [...], 2020, so she can obtain a birth certificate; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to submit a request for simplified access to Government Programs and Services relating to the birth of the child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents and Ms. C take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents and Ms. C report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child, her parents and Ms. C;

[ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE until March 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: October 20, 2021