2013 QCCQ 17461, 2013 QCCQ 17461

Protection de la jeunesse — 135926 2013 QCCQ 17461 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001389-110 DATE: September 30, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in Town A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review and extension of a decision rendered on December 19, 2012, concerning X, born on […], 2011. [ 2 ] At the hearing both parents are present and represented by counsel.

Due to his young age, the child is absent but represented by his own lawyer. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection asserts that the security and development of the child remain endangered and requests that he be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. The father agrees with the Director's recommendation, considering the child is under the care of his maternal great aunt. The child's lawyer also agrees with the Director's proposed measures. As for the mother, she is content of disagreeing with the Director's suggestion.

THE FACTS [ 4 ] On December 19, 2012, the Court ordered a short period of placement of the child. In fact, on the day of the hearing the recommendation first made by the Director of Youth Protection was to entrust X to a foster family until majority considering he was under the care of C and that she was ready to foster the child until his majority. However, on the date of the hearing the foster mother was in Town A at the hospital as she was expecting another child. This is why the Director of Youth Protection changed their recommendations to a four-month placement.

The Court endorsed the Director's request. [ 5 ] Unfortunately, since that judgment Mrs C's new born died. The cause of the death is unknown and is being investigated by the Coroner’s office. Accordingly, the Director of Youth Protection had to withdraw the child from the care of Mrs C. X is now living in Town C in the care of Mrs D, the mother's aunt. [ 6 ] Since the Court's last judgment, the father has returned to jail following another incident of conjugal violence involving the mother. He will remain incarcerated until the month of November. As to the status of the parents' relationship it remains unclear.

From the evidence gathered in the revision report, the mother has ambivalence about her future with the father. On some occasions, she was ready to contemplate a return with the father. On others, she wished to put a definite end to their relationship. On the day of the hearing she was leaning towards the latter. As for the father, he refused to tell the applicant his intentions regarding his relationship with the mother.

His lawyer stated to the Court that the father was willing to let the mother care for X without his interference. [ 7 ] The father's situation remains the same in the sense that while in jail he is not receiving any services for is ongoing anger management issues. He continues to be concerned by his son’s wellbeing but told the applicant he disagrees with a placement until

majority. There is no positive connection between the applicant and the father. [ 8 ] After the father's incarceration, the mother continued to live with the father's family in Town A. Last July she moved to Town C in order to be close to her family. In fact, she is living with D who is presently fostering X. She is able to assist her aunt with the care provided to the child.

Although X still needs daily medication for his breathing difficulties he is developing well and the care provided by his great aunt is more than adequate. [ 9 ] However, from the evidence gathered in the revision report drafted last April, the mother was unable to identify the specific care needed by her son due to his hypersensitive lungs. ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 10 ] X has been in foster care for well over two years now. In fact, he was two months old when he was first entrusted to a foster family.

Careful reading of the previous court orders shows that the parents have been repeating the same pattern in regards of domestic violence cycle. [ 11 ] Moreover, in the past the mother's capacity to care for X has seriously been put in doubt. In that regard, the mother's neglect regarding her son's health in April 2012, which led to his hospitalization, is eloquent. The mother's attachment to the child has also been put into question. [ 12 ] As previously stated, the Director of Youth Protection requests that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months.

Considering the parent's past relationship, the Director does not believe that the child can be entrusted to the mother and wants to see how the situation will evolve after the father's release from jail. [ 13 ] Since birth, X has been in the care of many different adults. He can no longer wait for his parents to properly care for him in an environment free of violence and neglect. In the best interest of the child and because the life project put forward by the Director fell through, the Court must disregard the legal delays of

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 14 ] This doesn't mean that time stands still. The Director of Youth Protection cannot be content with the status quo. The applicant will have to be proactive and elaborate a life project for X. Unless there is significant and meaningful change regarding the mother's parental capacities and true attachment to her child, the Director will have to find permanent living conditions for X outside his immediate family environment.

All this within the next six months. [ 15 ] The prognosis that the mother will be able to assume her parental responsibilities is more than reserved, considering the foregoing. [ 16 ] The Court concludes that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered and that the placement of the child in foster care for a period of six months is necessary to put into place a new life plan. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2011, continue to be in danger; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family for a period of six months; [ 21 ] TAKES NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection intends to entrust the child to his great aunt Mrs D; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to terms and modalities; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance for the child and his family for a period of six months; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child receive the necessary health care required by this state; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the child

M e Michel Solomon Lawyer for the mother M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: August 20, 2013