2017 QCCQ 17676, 2017 QCCQ 17676

Protection de la jeunesse — 177951 2017 QCCQ 17676 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000495-157 DATE: August 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2008 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 revise and extend the order rendered on February 1, 2017, in respect of the child. Her brothers are aimed by the same application. [ 2 ] On the day of the hearing, the mother shows up at the Court house.

When the social worker approaches her to give a copy of the reports in order for her to read it, she decides to leave, even though, she was not in agreement with the conclusions of the application. [ 3 ] The father is present but not represented. He wishes to proceed without a lawyer. He agrees with the suggested measures. Furthermore, he consents with the filing of the report as value the testimony of its author. [ 4 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent with the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the report as value the testimony of its author. [ 5 ] On February 1, 2017, an order was rendered entrusting the child to a foster family until April 30, 2017, and afterward with the mother. [ 6 ] At the beginning, the mother began to work on herself and attended some meeting with different professionals as recommended but it did not last long before she dropped everything.

Once again today in court she gives up and leaves instead of being there for her daughter. [ 7 ] Since this last order, mostly the mother did not get involved with services. She did not make any changes in her life. Neither, did she seek help concerning her addiction problem and personal issues. Basically nothing was done. Many services were put in place to support the mother and help her deal with her issues but it was hard for her to attend the

schedule appointments. [ 8 ] Also, the mother is not transparent with the services and the DYP. She keeps a lot of information for herself. [ 9 ] Despite, the mother has a good link with her daughter. She is the oldest of her children. In fact, the child acts as a protector towards the mother and fears to put her in trouble.

[ 10 ] When the child reintegrated her maternal home on April 30, 2017, it was noticed that the child still goes often to the foster family and sometimes for a few days. Moreover, the mother did not take any step to obtain professional services. It seems that as soon as her daughter got back with her, she stopped to make efforts to change her life around. She talks a lot and makes many promises but sadly she does not respect them. [ 11 ] The father is involved in his daughter’s life. He sees her from time to time and sometimes for sleep over. He wishes that his daughter comes live with him.

For this reason, he agreed to go through a home evaluation and a parental capacity assessment. The process started but was not completed for the present court date. [ 12 ] The child is nine years old. She needs a secure and healthy environment in order to grow adequately. Considering the instability and the inconsistency of the mother, a life project has to be established for the child. She cannot be waiting for her mother to get well and she has the right to a good life for herself. [ 13 ] At the time, the father wants to take care of his daughter but first he needs to be properly assessed.

For the time being the child will remain with her maternal aunt since the mother is not able to receive her and the father has to complete his assessments. After, we will have a complete portrait of the situation in order to establish for her the best plan for her future and in her best interest. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. [ 15 ] Under the circumstances and considering the evidence, the admissions and consents, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 1, 2017; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her maternal aunt C until January 31, 2018; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents take place upon agreement between the parties, including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father complete a parental capacity assessment; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father have regular visitations with his daughter; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive psychological counselling for her personal issues; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother involve herself in a drug and alcohol counselling and follow up if deemed necessary by the professional; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child and her family participate actively in the application of the ordered measures to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until January 31, 2018; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B

the father Date of hearing: August 9, 2017 Whitten judgment file on September 13, 2017