2016 QCCQ 17900, 2016 QCCQ 17900

Protection de la jeunesse — 168815 2016 QCCQ 17900 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-025706-128 DATE : June 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2005 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on June 27 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered on June 19 th , 2015 by Judge Michèle Lefebvre. The Director is asking that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster family until his age of majority. [ 3 ] The mother admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion except that she continues to be hard to reach by telephone.

She agrees with the recommendations of the Director. [ 4 ] After hearing the testimonies and reading the reports, counsel for the child agrees with the recommendations of the Director and asks the Court to name the foster parents as part of court ordered measures. CONTEXT [ 5 ] A lengthy decision had been rendered by Judge Lefebre explaining the reasons why the security and development of the child had been declared compromised due to risk of physical abuse. [ 6 ] The child's current situation is stable in the foster family.

In school, he completed his grade 4 and is currently in an adapted program where he is doing very well.

[ 7 ] His paediatrician as well as school staff and foster parents agree that he no longer needs medication for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), given that he is able to perform well at school and at home. [ 8 ] The child continues to maintain regular monthly contact with his siblings as the foster parents of the three children are committed to ensure that the children continue to keep close contacts. [ 9 ] The situation of the mother remains unchanged. Even if she denies it, the worker states that it is at times hard to reach her as her phone is often disconnected.

However, whenever the youth protection worker is able to talk to her, the mother inquires about her children's wellbeing and indicates that she is grateful for the good care provided to them. [ 10 ] Despite the invitation made by Judge Lefebvre and the support offered to the mother by the youth protection worker to have her criminal court conditions modified in order to lift the prohibition of contact with her children, no steps have been taken allowing for the Director to carefully initiate contacts between mother and child. [ 11 ] The foster mother's testimony establishes clearly her commitment and that of her spouse to foster the child and provide for him for as long as needed. [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the child remaining in his current foster family will ensure that his needs are met.

The recommendations of the Director are therefore in the best interest of the child. AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 14 ] REVOKES from Mr. B the status of party; [ 15 ] ORDERS that X remain entrusted to a foster family until his age of majority; [ 16 ] DESIGNATES the foster parents to be Mrs. C and Mr.

D; [ 17 ] ALLOWS for the confidentiality of the address of the foster parents to remain in effect for one (1) year; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his mother be suspended for as long as the criminal court conditions still apply; [ 19 ] ORDERS that when these conditions are lifted, if the mother expresses the wish to resume contacts with X, she meets with the worker on at least three occasions to establish her commitment to remain involved with her son; [ 20 ] ORDERS , if the contacts were to resume between the child and his mother, that the frequency and modality of contacts between the mother and X be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary, taking into account X's wishes and his best interest; [ 21 ] Then SETS the minimum frequency of contacts between X and his mother at once (1) per season; [ 22 ] PROHIBITS contacts between X and Mr.

E; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his brothers, Y and Z, be maintained and encouraged; [ 24 ] TAKES ACT that these contacts happen currently once per month; [ 25 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of the attributes of parental authority and GRANTS these attributes to the foster parents, Mrs. C and Mr.

D; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in the psychological assessment completed by the psychologist Peter Kelly in June 2012 and engage in therapy; [ 27 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his mother until his age of majority. [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the child Date of hearing : June 27 th , 2016