2021 QCCQ 15183, 2021 QCCQ 15183

Protection de la jeunesse — 218778 2021 QCCQ 15183 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-001073-201 DATE: September 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on December 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at House […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Mother and B , residing and domiciled at House […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) 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 November 25, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered, entrusted the child to a foster family and authorized the child’s return to his parents when the situation allows it, until August 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents, asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family and returned to his parents when the situation will allow it, the whole until February 28, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. She is aware of the hearing and she agrees with the DYP’s recommendations.

Considering the consent and the best interest of the child, the Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Ève Laoun. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. He said being aware of the maximum period of placement. He is grateful for the help he receives from his family. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett. He agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The child has 2 siblings, Y (6) and Z (2). The Court is also seized with their situation.

History of the Situation [ 7 ] On November 25, 2020, the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 7 years old. The mother was known from the DYP services as her 2 oldest children are entrusted until majority. The child is entrusted to a foster family since September 2020, due to the presence of bedbugs and no other housing alternative. There was also an ongoing problem of supervision and unresolved drinking problem. The children had to be moved from one family to another one and were not able to be all together. The parents did not ask for more than one visit.

Steps were taken to find a foster family within the extended family members without any success. The parents recently started to collaborate with the DYP and apply the recommendations. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family until August 31, 2021. The Court authorized the child’s return to his parents when the situation allows it. Facts [ 8 ] X has some speech difficulties and also difficulty to understand and to follow the rules. According to the school’s suggestion, an appointment with a pediatrician was asked.

During the actual school year, he is supposed to receive services from a speech therapist or

a psychoeducator to clarify his needs. He will also receive services from a special education teacher to help him build his social skills and confidence. [ 9 ] The parents continue to struggle with their difficulties which they are conscious about. They always confirm their willingness to improve their situation. They met with the Social Services to address their alcohol consumption and also to improve their parental capacities, but they did not maintain their involvement in the follow-up.

The parents collaborate well with the DYP services, but they are not proactive to solve the situation. [ 10 ] On May 26, 2021, a family council was held and it had been agreed that a family supper would take place every Friday at the foster parents’ place and that the children would have a sleepover at their parents’ place right after.

The collaboration of the parents was requested to participate to the medical appointments. [ 11 ] The DYP recognized the improvement made by the parents, particularly the father, during the last months and despite the facts that some issues remain, it is possible to give them another chance before thinking about a long-term placement. Moreover, the child changed 3 times of foster family since the last decision and the life plan is not ready yet.

Analysis [ 12 ] The situation of the child remains endangered and the measures suggested by the DYP, which the parents agree with, are in the best interest of the child. [ 13 ] The parents improve a lot and they have to continue in the same way to permit the reintegration. Indeed, the best place for the child is with his parents. [ 14 ] That being said, the Court takes note that the father has been made aware of the existence of the maximum period of placement and understand that at a certain point, if the reintegration is not possible, the Court will have to render a permanent decision.

Indeed, it is not possible to put the child on hold year after year. [ 15 ] Due to the parents’ improvement, the contacts were increased and as long as the parents continue like that, the contacts will continue to increase which is in the best interest of the child. It would be prejudicial for the child that this hope of reintegration be jeopardized.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child return to the parents when the situation allows it, notably, if: • The parents engaged in a therapy regarding their alcohol consumption; • The parents stay sober in the presence of the child; • The parents do not miss any visit with their kids because of alcohol consumption; • The parents collaborate actively by being involved in their children's medical follow-up and other needs; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the terms and degree of supervision of all contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober from drugs and alcohol and refrain from any violent behaviour in the presence of the children; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to seek help, through the Social Services or other resources deemed appropriate for their substance abuse and personal issues; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits to the parents’ home when the children are under their care; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child, the family and the foster family; [ 27 ] 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; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE until February 28, 2022.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 22, 2021