2013 QCCQ 11897, 2013 QCCQ 11897

Protection de la jeunesse — 133933 2013 QCCQ 11897 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025778-127 DATE: July 15, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2012 - and - A Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of July 15, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered June 5, 2012, ordering that the child be entrusted to foster care until June 5, 2013, with a social follow-up for the same period as well as others specific measures. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child remains in foster care along with her brother; • The child’s withdrawal symptoms gradually subsided and the child currently only has minor medical concerns; • The child is otherwise developing at an age-appropriate level; • In January 2013, the child and her brother were transferred to another foster home that can care for both of them long-term; • The child has adapted well to the new foster home with no issues being reported; • After several unsuccessful attempts to support both the father and Mrs.

B to complete the registration process for the child’s birth, only the father’s name appears as a declared parent; • Mrs. B continues to struggle with personal issues of transiency and drug abuse; • Until July 2012, the father maintained irregular contact with the child; • Since July 2012, although in communication with the case worker, the father has not inquired about the child and has not requested any contact; • In September 2012, the case worker was informed that the father is presently serving a 15 months sentence for assault on Mrs. B; • Neither the father nor Mrs.

B is in a position to resume care of the child.

[ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be maintained in foster care for a period of nine months with a social follow-up for the same period. The Director of Youth Protection informs the Court that a motion for a declaration of eligibility for adoption concerning the child will be filed shortly. [ 5 ] The father admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion. The father is currently serving a two years minus a day sentence for drug trafficking and states that he will be released on December 14, 2013, after having served the two thirds of his sentence.

He therefore consents for X to be entrusted to foster care, but wishes for her to eventually be entrusted to the care of his niece who lives in [A Province]. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection are in X's best interest. [ 7 ] The parental capacity assessment of the father was conducted by Peter C, psychologist. The father presented himself for the assessment accompanied by the biological mother, Ms. Mary B.

The psychologist administered a number of tests to the father, which reveal some concerns, including the possibility of disordered thinking and maybe even hallucinations and delusions. In addition, certain tests suggested antisocial personality tendencies.

Furthermore, the psychologist was concerned that the father was not completely forthcoming with regards to his issues of substance use and anger management and that he may tend to externalize blame rather than to admit to or address his own shortcomings. [ 8 ] However, the father was caring towards the child during the parent child observation and demonstrated to be capable of meeting the emotional and physical needs of his daughter on a short term basis.

Finally, the psychologist recommends that the father complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any treatment recommendations, in order to address his substance dependency issues. Also, if a psychological treatment was to be considered, that the therapist explore the father’s treatment motivation early in therapy. [ 9 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], social worker, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the child has integrated the same foster family as her half brother Y.

Overall, X is doing well although she suffers from foetal alcohol syndrome due to her mother’s alcohol use during pregnancy. The biological mother’s whereabouts are once again unknown and reports from community professionals and family confirm that she is homeless and that her issues with substance dependency remain present. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be maintained in her current foster home for a period of nine moths. X has integrated well to her foster family where she receives answer to all her needs.

The father not in a position to regain custody of his daughter and he must address his personal issues.

Contacts between the father and the child may take place, taking into consideration the best interest of the child. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to foster care for a period of nine months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection under the following conditions: • ORDERS that arrangements be made for one family contact during the summer at A jail; • RECOMMENDS that after this contact, the situation be reviewed by DYP after discussion with the father and the paternal aunt; [ 16 ] WITHDRAWS from the father certain attributes of parental authority and ORDERS that DYP be authorized to sign all documents and consents regarding the child’s needs; [ 17 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to obtain and share pertinent information with professionals and authorities involved with the father; [ 18 ] ORDERS the father to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the father have the opportunity to have an interview with the psychologist, Peter C, in order to have his parental capacity assessment explained to him; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr.

C be asked if he can present himself to A jail or, if other arrangements can be made in order for him to explain the report to the father, either by videoconference or by telephone; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the necessary health care services required by her situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of nine months; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

AMJ/dg Signed July 23, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. Me Adelia Ferreira Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Luce James Counsel for the child Me Alexandre Lenis Counsel for the father Date of hearing: July 15, 2013