2013 QCCQ 6857, 2013 QCCQ 6857

Protection de la jeunesse — 131188 2013 QCCQ 6857 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-023024-102 DATE: March 27, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […] 29, 2010 - and - A Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of March 27, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered March 15, 2012, entrusting the child to foster care for a period of one year, along with a social follow-up as well as other specific measures. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • Since the last court date, until mid-February 2013, the child remained in the same foster family where he was developing well and his needs were being met; • The child has made significant progress in his gross, fine motor, perceptual and language skills; • The child’s development has improved to such an extent that by September 2012, it was deemed that he no longer requires occupational therapy; • In April 2012, the mother gave birth to the child’s half sibling, Y, who was integrated into the same foster family as the child; • The mother had two supervised visits with the child, these being in February 2012 and June 2012; • The mother has not requested nor had any visits with the child since June 2012; • The mother and the maternal grandmother contact the foster home on an average of once per month, to inquire about the child; • The mother has remained uninvolved in the child’s life; • The mother has not taken steps to address her personal issues; • In February 2013, the child was integrated into a new long term foster home, with the thought of potentially seeking a declaration of eligibility for adoption;

• Given the recent integration of the child to the new foster family, more time is required for the child to adjust to his new foster family and for the permanent plan to be solidified for the child. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year, in order for a permanent plan be established for the child. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided for the same period. [ 5 ] The mother is not present at the hearing and her whereabouts are unknown.

The mother has had one contact with her son, on June 15, 2012, when both X and his sister had an appointment at the A medical Clinic. Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [social worker 1], social worker, and read the report the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the maternal grandmother of the child has kept in contact, approximately once a month, with the child's former foster parents.

However, the grandmother has not had any contact with the new foster parents. As for the mother, she is not involved in the social follow-up. [ 8 ] The child has integrated a mixed bank foster home with his sister Y at the end of January 2013. [social worker 1] states that X is doing very well in this new home. X and his sister are the only children in the home and the foster mother is a stay at home mother. [ 9 ] The evidence establishes clearly that the mother is not in a position to regain custody of her son, neither on a short or long term basis.

The mother has only seen X when the maternal grandmother, who lives in City A, visits City B. Furthermore, the mother has not taken any steps to change her life style or address her difficulties. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year.

This period will permit the child to adapt to his new family and for DYP to establish a permanent plan for X, including seeking a declaration for adoptability, if deemed in his best interest. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother and his maternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 17 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother certain attributes of parental authority and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all documentation pertaining to the child; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with mother's service providers; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his condition; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed April 8, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Robert Hamel Counsel for the child Date of hearing: March 27, 2013