2020 QCCQ 3710, 2020 QCCQ 3710

Protection de la jeunesse — 203695 2020 QCCQ 3710 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000546-173 DATE: July 14, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 26, 2020, in respect of the child to be entrusted to a foster family until her majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present. Neither the father nor the child contests the suggested measures. However, their respective lawyers considered that a one-year measure would be more appropriate in the circumstances.

At first, the mother does not disagree with the measures, but later she changes her mind and rather disputes their duration. • File History [ 3 ] In the last judgment rendered [1] , the child was entrusted to a foster family because both parents were struggling with personal issues. It is mentioned in the court order that the mother refuses to take responsibility for her actions and blames others instead. Services are available to help her, but she is not consistent and misses scheduled appointments. She mentions to the youth protection delegate that she does not need help.

The mother lacks interest in her daughter’s education and activities. The father is now more involved in his daughter’s life, and he cooperates with the DYP. He still has issues to deal with, such as addictions. • ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The mother’s situation has not changed since the last ordered measures. She still has issues with drug abuse and blames the DYP for everything. [ 5 ] The father found a new job within the community and was searching for a house. He has supervised as well as unsupervised visits with the child, and everything is positive. They have a good bond.

For the past months, they see each other and the father can take care of his daughter as well as provide her a suitable environment. The child also wishes to go live with her dad. [ 6 ] A progressive integration of the child with the father is planned, but cannot materialize due to worrying situations in regards of

the father. During a random visit at his residence, other adults were present and the father was under the influence. Another event took place, in the child’s presence, who required a police intervention. He also went at the mothers under the influence to argue with her in front of the child. Furthermore, he makes threatening statements to the youth protection delegate. [ 7 ] The child shares that her father drinks a lot and puts a white substance in his nose.

In these circumstances, a placement of the child with the father is impossible, as his environment is no longer suitable for her. [ 8 ] In May 2019, the mother integrates the “ [Centre A] mother and child treatment program ” in City A for a period of eight months, to deal with her addiction. She has been succeeding in the phases of the program. She had two successful visits back in her home environment. In November 2019, she relapses and refuses to return to [Center A]. Once again, the mother does not mobilize herself and does not take the necessary steps nor responsibilities to change her situation.

The mother states that she completed the program, but the evidence says otherwise. [ 9 ] Since she left the program at [Centre A], she does not seem to be in full possession of herself. She does not always take responsibility for her consumption, and she is not able to control it. She has been trying to fight her addiction for the past three years but unsuccessfully. Besides, she is not reaching out for help. [ 10 ] The child is entrusted to her current foster family for the past three years. She is doing fine in all spheres of her life.

Although, the child has been living in the same foster family for several months, it is not the family targeted for her life project but rather the environment of her paternal aunt. [ 11 ] All the visits with her father were at her aunt’s home, and the child enjoyed her time there. Even if she is looking forward to moving with her aunt still, she would like to visit her current foster home, because she is also sad to leave them. • Life Plan Project [ 12 ] After the last events who occurred to the father, the situation has improved. He has been consistent with his visits and is always prepared.

He collaborates with the DYP and works with the services. He agrees for his daughter to be entrusted to his sister. [ 13 ] The mother does not agree to a long-term placement of the child. She claims that she needs more time to be back on her feet, she is not perfect. Nevertheless, she still blames DYP for not doing anything to help her. [ 14 ] In this case, the maximum delays of placements have passed. It does not appear that the parents will be able to care for the child in the short, medium or long term.

Still, the Court has some concerns about the way that the long-term project was planned. [ 15 ] In Protection de la jeunesse – 143523 [2] , Madam Justice Mélanie Roy mentions the following regarding the process for developing a life plan and what must be planned for it, as hereby reproduce: [19] Le Tribunal considère que l’actualisation du projet de vie est prématurée. Un tel projet ne peut être préparé à la dernière minute, comme c’est le cas ici .

Les parents doivent être consultés et la Directrice doit s’assurer qu’ils ont reçu toute l’information nécessaire. […] [23] Au surplus, le Tribunal considère que l’enfant n’a passé que très peu de temps dans son nouveau milieu de vie et qu’il est prématuré de penser à un projet de vie à long terme. [24] Il ne faut pas comprendre de cette affirmation que la tante maternelle n’a pas les qualités nécessaires pour assurer la responsabilité de son neveu, au contraire.

Cette dernière semble disposer d’excellentes habiletés parentales et le Tribunal n’a aucun doute sur sa volonté de s’engager à long terme. [25] L’objectif de stabilité recherché par le législateur ne pourra être atteint que si le projet de vie est réfléchi, discuté entre les parties et viable à long terme : [35] Le Tribunal ne peut adhérer à un projet de vie permanent pour une jeune enfant seulement sur la récitation de quelques généralités alors qu’il ressort que cette proposition a été préparée à la dernière minute [3] . [26] Comme le rappelle la Cour d’appel du Québec [4] : [97] L’objectif de stabilité recherché par le législateur dépend de la célérité de la D.P.J. à proposer des mesures permanentes qui seront viables.

Non seulement doit-il les concevoir, mais il doit aussi être en mesure d’en faire la preuve. Ces conditions réunies, le tribunal peut alors rendre une ordonnance qui tend à assurer la continuité des soins et la stabilité des liens et des conditions de vie de l’enfant, et ce, de façon permanente. […] [100] La Loi ne définit toutefois pas ce qu’est « un projet de vie ». Il apparaît hasardeux dans le contexte du présent dossier de tenter d’en fixer les paramètres précis. Disons simplement qu’un projet de vie en est un qui permet à l’enfant de grandir dans un milieu sécuritaire et stable.

Il doit aussi assurer le développement de liens affectifs durables et favoriser son plein épanouissement. [27] Ainsi, le Tribunal considère qu’il est de sa responsabilité de ne pas avaliser un projet de vie si peu élaboré. Une ordonnance d’une plus courte durée, soit une année, permettra à la Directrice de vérifier comment l’enfant évolue dans son nouveau milieu de vie. Elle permettra aussi de vérifier comment le milieu de vie proposé répond à l’ensemble des besoins de l’enfant. [28] Enfin, elle permettra à la Directrice de s’assurer de convenir, avec les parents, de la place et du rôle qu’ils pourront jouer dans

l’éventualité d’un placement à long. [Our underlines] [ 16 ] In this case, after hearing the youth protection delegate’s testimony, we learn that the child never had visits alone with her new family. Indeed, she went to her aunts only for the contact with her father. These visits started in January 2020 and just took place once a week, for a 3-hour period. Nothing shows in the evidence that the visits lasted several days, or they were sleep over. The life project put in place is quite recent and poorly planned.

Moreover, there was no gradual integration, according to the evidence adduced. [ 17 ] Certainly, the child was already entrusted in the past to her aunt, but it was several years ago. Of course, the aunt is available and willing to take care of her. However, there is not much details given in regard to the relationship between the child and her aunt nor with the rest of the family. Basically, we know little about the whole plan and the actual situation, because nothing was done to prepare the child.

When questioned, the youth protection delegate does not enlighten the court on this life project. • Supervised visits with the parents [ 18 ] The youth protection delegate during his testimony mentions that supervision is no longer required for the father considering his progress. He pursues his collaboration with the DYP and with the services. For the mother, the situation is quite different. She is not stable and consistent in her behaviour.

She sometimes falls asleep during her contact with the child; this is why the visits are not increased. conclusion [ 19 ] The Court could notice how confused and inconsistent the mother seemed. Her behaviour in the courtroom leaves the Court perplexed. She does not seem to take seriously the requested measures. Indeed, although the documentary evidence is given to the mother in January 2020, she does not take the time to read it, while the hearing does not take place until July. This shows that she cares little for the interests of her child.

She justifies herself by saying that she has three children so she cannot read everything. Basically, she does not show any progress concerning her situation. [ 20 ] Even though the placement period is expired, the fact remains that the life plan is hasty.

We have to make sure that the environment chosen for the child is the best for her and her needs, which clearly does not appear to have been adequately prepared. [ 21 ] As mentioned by my colleague madam Justice Roy, whose opinion I fully share, the Court cannot follow a permanent life project for a young child only on the recitation of a few general points when it appears that this proposal was prepared at the last minute.

For these reasons, a measure of one year is preferable in order to evaluate the viability of this project. [ 22 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduces, the application is well founded. Furthermore, these measures appear to be in the child’s best interest except regarding the length of the measure as well as the supervised contact with the father.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the amended application for revision and extension of order; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child benefits from a progressive integration to the foster family of Mrs. C and Mr. D; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. C and Mr.

D, on September 1, 2020 until July 31, 2021; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be determined according to agreement between the parties; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be determined according to agreement between the parties and that they be supervised, as long as deemed necessary ty the DYP; [ 29 ] Orders to encourage contacts between the child and her siblings; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober in the presence of the child; [ 31 ] PROHIBITS the parents from denigrating one another or social services in the presence of the child; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents engage in psychological counselling in connection with their personal difficulties, as deemed necessary by the professionals involved; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and her family until July 31, 2021; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the director of youth protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment.

__________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the father Mrs. A the mother Date of hearing: July 8, 2020