2014 QCCQ 21103, 2014 QCCQ 21103

Protection de la jeunesse — 149257 2014 QCCQ 21103 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 615-41-001919-140 DATE: December 15, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC OUIMETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, exercising his profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] Petitioner and X, born on [...], 2011 Child and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION TO REVIEW AND EXTEND A DECISION ( section 95(1) and (2) , and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing 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 applied, under the

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , [1] for the extension of a decision rendered by the Honourable Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q., on April 24, 2014. X Faith was entrusted at that time to a foster family for six months. [ 2 ] At the hearing, Mtre. Valérie Martel acted on behalf of the petitioner, Mtre. Mylène Grondin represented the child, and the mother was present and assisted by Mtre. Amélie Dion. The father was not present although he had been duly served with the Court proceedings. [ 3 ] The mother put an end to the relationship with the father and she has a new boyfriend.

She now lives with him and he takes care of the child. They separated twice for short periods of time within the last two years. They have an apartment in City A with a bedroom for X. [ 4 ] The mother testified that there is no need for the measures to be extended. She knows how to get services from the A Centre. She is now looking for a psychologist and would like to have services for her anger management. [ 5 ] The petitioner is asking for an extension of the measures until February 12, 2015, with reintegration into the mother’s home starting December 12, 2014.

The petitioner suggested that the weekly visits be extended to three days. [ 6 ] The Court has to decide if the child is still in danger and if an extension of the measures is necessary to protect her. The facts: [ 7 ] The child was placed for six months with her aunt and returned to the mother in December 2013. [ 8 ] After two months, the mother relapsed and was not able to take care of her daughter. X was placed again in a foster family for a period of six months starting April 24, 2014.

[ 9 ] The mother has been sober since June 2014 and has relapsed a few times. She receives services from the Centre B. Analysis: [ 10 ] Would the child still be in danger if she returned to the mother’s home? The Court believes that the mother has made changes in her life and that she is now ready to have her child back. [ 11 ] The child visits her mother every week for two days with a sleepover. [ 12 ] The mother has the support of social services, and her boyfriend also helps her. [ 13 ] They have an apartment in City A and the mother knows how to take care of the baby when she is sober.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] MAINTAINS that the situation of X is still in danger, as declared in the last judgment; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child X be entrusted to a foster family until February 12, 2015; [ 17 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the mother for a period of 12 months; [ 18 ] ORDERS that contact by the father with the child be conditional on his involvement in follow-up with youth protection services and be under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the personal relations between the child and her mother be maintained under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection in terms of frequency and modalities; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS three-day contact every week between the child and her mother; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents authorize the Director of Youth Protection to obtain information from the professionals regarding their personal follow-up, along with the professionals’ recommendations; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother continue her follow-up with the Centre B; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother complete an anger management program; [ 24 ] ORDERS any police force to cooperate in executing this judgment; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ MARC OUIMETTE, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Valérie Martel Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Counsel for the petitioner Mtre. Mylène Grondin for Mtre. Claude Cossette Counsel for the child Mtre. Amélie Dion Cliche Lortie Ladouceur inc. Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: November 25, 2014