2013 QCCQ 10171, 2013 QCCQ 10171

Protection de la jeunesse — 132957 2013 QCCQ 10171 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000593-137 DATE: July 8, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , t.s., exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse of A , having a place of business at […] Street in City A , district A (Quebec) […] Applicant A , residing and domiciled at [...] in City B , district A ( Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in City B , district A (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X , born on [...] , 2012, declared in danger pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii) and 38 e) 1° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The child is absent but represented by a lawyer. The mother is present and represented by a lawyer. The father is absent. [ 3 ] The father is absent even if he was duly served with a copy of the application.

The mother who lives with him said that he would not attend Court today. [ 4 ] The father doesn't collaborate with the Youth Protection and he is not involved in the child's life. [ 5 ] Considering all the evidence including the fact that the father was duly served the Court allows the applicant to proceed with the application in his absence. [ 6 ] The mother admits that the situation of her child is compromised pursuant to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act and she agrees with the applicant's recommendations. [ 7 ] The child's lawyer admits that the child's the situation is compromised and agrees with the applicant's recommendations. [ 8 ] The applicant recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months if the Court declares that the security and development of the child is in danger. [ 9 ] The Court considers that following the admissions and the testimonies heard there is preponderant evidence of the following facts. [ 10 ] The child's parents are separated since January 2013. [ 11 ] On or about February 9, 2013 the father got angry and slapped the child on the arm leaving a red mark. [ 12 ] One hour later when the police intervened the child still had marks on her arm.

The father was arrested and released with conditions to respect. [ 13 ] According to those conditions he's not allowed to contact the child. [ 14 ] It seems to be the only event of this nature concerning the child and the father. [ 15 ] The father doesn't collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 16 ] Since February 11, 2013 the Director of Youth Protection has been trying to contact the father unsuccessfully.

[ 17 ] The mother has a problem of instability. She is without a fixed address since January 2013. She is hosted in different places and stays for a couple of days at each of them. Sometimes she leaves the child with friends when she goes out partying. [ 18 ] For now she lives with the father even if they are not a couple anymore. [ 19 ] Three weeks ago she applied on the reserve for housing. She wants to have her own place on or off the reserve. [ 20 ] The mother is 28 years old and has a serious past history including neglectful mother, sexual abuse and abandonment. She has attachment problem.

She has weak resources both emotionally and socially. [ 21 ] The mother would have in the past a history of neglect. Those problems were very serious.

Four of her children still have a follow up under the Youth Protection Act and none of them are entrusted to her. [ 22 ] The mother admits that her instability, the father's abuse and the lack of lodging endanger the child's security and development. [ 23 ] On March 15, 2013 the mother asked to the Director's delegate the child's placement in a foster family. [ 24 ] When the delegate went to get the child for the placement she was not dressed properly according to the weather. [ 25 ] The same day, the mother signed a provisional agreement to place the child in a foster family for 30 days. [ 26 ] The child is in a native family known by the mother. [ 27 ] The child is 11 months old.

She is in good health and develops normally. [ 28 ] Since the child's placement in a foster family the mother visits the child once a week for periods of one hour and one hour and a half. The mother-child contacts go well. [ 29 ] The mother wishes to see her child more than one hour a week when she will have her own apartment. For now she asks the Court to minimally see her child one hour a week. [ 30 ] The bond is positive between the mother and the child. However that bond is not significant.

In this sense the child reacts positively to her mother's arrival but may also react the same way with anyone else. [ 31 ] As for the involvement of the mother with the child it is positive despite slight problems. The mother has warm physical contact with the child during the visits but it is not constant. Also the mother has difficulty when it is time to stimulate the child's learning skills. [ 32 ] The mother could improve those skills since she collaborates well with the Youth Protection and shows openness to receiving help.

However she seems to have difficulty initiating these steps but she will go towards the services if someone who works for those services accompanies her. [ 33 ] As for the father he is sixty years old and is a truck driver. He lives in City B and his involvement with the child is minimal. Since the February 9 event he has no contact with the child.

He explicitly refused to collaborate with the Youth Protection. [ 34 ] After hearing all the evidence including the admissions from the mother the Court concludes that the security and development of the child is compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii) and 38 e) 1° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 35 ] The Court is convinced that the applicant's recommendations are appropriate to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger.

For these reasons the Court: [ 36 ] Grants the application; [ 37 ] Declares the security and development of X , born on [...] , 2012 as being compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii) and 38 e) 1° of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 38 ] Entrusts the child to a foster family for a period of six months; [ 39 ] All the other measures are for 18 months; [ 40 ] Orders that the parents actively participate in applying the ordered measures; [ 41 ] Orders that the mother receive a drug and alcohol addiction assessment and follow-up if deemed necessary; [ 42 ] Orders that the mother maintains her follow-up with the First-line services; [ 43 ] Recommends that the mother continues her parenting course until the end; [ 44 ] Orders that a person working for an establishment or organisation provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 45 ] Orders that the parents report the Director of Youth Protection at regular intervals to inform him of the evolution of the situation;

[ 46 ] Considering that the father doesn't collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, orders that the contacts between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, modalities and frequency; [ 47 ] Considering that the mother doesn't have her own apartment for now, orders that the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, modalities and frequency and considering the housing situation of the mother, the minimum contacts are one hour a week; [ 48 ] Recommends that the exchange of pertinent information between the professionals involved in the situation of the child could be done; [ 49 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 50 ] Entrusts the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the child Me Michel-Etienne Parayre, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 28, 2013