2023 QCCQ 7167, 2023 QCCQ 7167

Protection de la jeunesse — 233778 2023 QCCQ 7167 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-038948-212 DATE: June 22 nd , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF THE CIUSSS A Applicant -and- X Born on [...], 2021 Child -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT IN REVISION AND EXTENSION [1] (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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] X is twenty-one months old. Since September 2021, he lives with his current foster parents. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking that X remain in his current foster family until majority. The mother’s lawyer has a mandate to contest the period of time of placement recommended by the Director. Unfortunately, the mother was absent in January 2023 when the hearing was set.

She is also absent at the conclusion of the hearing in June 2023. [ 3 ] Although the father was present in January and requested the hearing to be postponed in order to seek legal representation, he has failed to be present in court in June 2023. [ 4 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry, the attorney for the child agrees with the main recommendations presented by the Director. She is in favor of the frequency of contacts between her young client and the parents to be maintained at once per week.

The supervision of contact could be lifted and the Director should clarify the orientation to be given to the intervention as the worker failed to have answers to many of the questions put to her. QUESTION AT STAKE [ 5 ] Taking into consideration the situation of the parents and the age of the child, is it in the best interest of X that he be entrusted to his foster family until majority? ANALYSIS [ 6 ] To that question, the tribunal answers yes for the following reasons. [ 7 ] Following the decision rendered in May 2022, the parents first offered their collaboration to the intervention of the Director.

The father met three times with the worker in order to discuss his commitment and motivation to establish contacts with his son. He

indicated to the worker wanting to collaborate with the Director. The parents moved in together and expressed their wish to coparent X. [ 8 ] Supervised visits were organised weekly at the family home. The mother cancelled the visits of May 27 and June 1 st 2022. On June 7 th , the first supervised visit with both parents took place. The child reacted as he had not seen his mother in over one month and had not seen his father since birth. X cried a lot during this first visit. The parents were both appropriate in understanding the child’s feelings and discomfort.

They tried to soothe him the best they could. [ 9 ] On July 22 nd , the contacts were increased to two per week as the parents were, up until then, attending the visits regularly. But that did not last. The parents cancelled a few visits, for various reasons. Also, the CLSC informed the youth worker that the mother did not attend her assessment session. At the same time, the [center A] parenting coach informed the worker that the mother had failed to complete the forms necessary to begin her parenting classes. [ 10 ] Mr.

B has failed to follow through with the referral made to the network A ([network A]) he had agreed to. Finally, the parents failed to make themselves available for drug testing. [ 11 ] As a result of the cancelled visits between the child and the parents, the worker scheduled the visits at the office rather than at home as of the end of July 2022. [ 12 ] From then until the New Year, the parents only attended 13 out the 22 visits scheduled and were late on 5 occasions.

Their collaboration to the intervention of the Director was insufficient as the mother attended only 5, and the father 9, of the 18 meetings scheduled with the worker. [ 13 ] Although the parents were asked to attend random drug testing, they refused or failed to do so. [ 14 ] Since mid-January 2023 until May, the parents kept regular contacts with the child. The father was present for 11 out of 18 contacts. The mother attended 14 visits. In May, the parents have missed the 4 planned visits.

In June, one week prior to the inquiry, they again missed their visit with their son. [ 15 ] Neither parent has taken steps to receive the services from either the CLSC, the [network A] nor the [center A] parenting services. [ 16 ] The evidence reveals that the parents have been unable to correct their situation and to address the reasons that led to the intervention of the Director. They have nonetheless kept contacts with their son without taking advantage of all the contacts scheduled. [ 17 ] The Director is making a long-term plan for the child, asking his placement in foster family until majority.

The worker is unable to explain the role the parents should play in the life of the child: the subject has not yet been discussed with her supervisor. [ 18 ] The worker explains that the plan is to reduce the frequency of contacts between the child and his parents because the child will be fostered until majority. Nonetheless, she describes how the child is happy to meet with his parents.

X benefits from these contacts: he displays no negative reaction before, during nor following the contacts. [ 19 ] The Director is invited to clarify quickly the role the parents should play in the life of their son and to ensure that the contacts between the child and his parents are promoted. The parents’ involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging or helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities [2] . [ 20 ] The evidence reveals that the security and development of the child are still endangered due to risk of neglect.

The measures recommended by the Director meet the needs of the child and are in his best interest. AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still endangered due to serious risk of neglect; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection, namely the foster family of Mrs. C and Mr.

D; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the frequency, modality and duration of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 24 ] SETS the minimal frequency of contacts between the child and his parents at one (1) per week; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS to the parents to submit to random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents meet with the social worker upon request to inform the Director of their situation; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take the appropriate steps to address their personal issues and demonstrate their progress to the Director; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Center provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, his parents and foster parents;

[ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] THE WHOLE until the child’s age of majority on [...], 2039. Signed on July 24 th , 2023 __________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. M e Hanane Loumi For the Director of Youth Protection M e Karine Dallaire For the child M e Lilian Stah For the mother Date of hearing: January 30 th and June 22 nd , 2023 MA/cc [1] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on June 22 nd , 2023.