2020 QCCQ 1607, 2020 QCCQ 1607

Protection de la jeunesse — 201399 2020 QCCQ 1607 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-030174-155 Date: January 21, 2020 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother The parent JUDGMENT Sections 95 and 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.

P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 21, 2020, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with an Application for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on June 6, 2017, whereby the now four year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of his maternal grandmother with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application for revision and extension dated May 16, 2018, are as follows: 3.1. since the date of the last hearing, X has remained in the care of his maternal grandmother, Ms. B; 3.2. on December 29, 2017, during an unannounced visit to Ms.

A home, the youth protection worker discovered that Ms. A boyfriend, Mr. C was also living in the home; 3.3. prior to that visit, the youth protection worker was unaware that Ms. A and Mr. C were living together; 3.4. on January 19, 2018, an incident of conjugal violence occurred between Ms. A and Mr. C, and the police were called to the home; 3.5. following that incident, Mr. C threatened to hurt Ms. A in the presence of his young offenders worker; 3.5. until May 2018, the educator was unable to work with Ms. A, as she would cancel or not show up to all scheduled appointments; 3.7. Ms.

A is not consistent in her collaboration with the youth protection worker; 3.8. X is attaining his developmental milestones; 3.9. Ms. B is able and willing to care for X long term; 3.10. Ms. B is currently being assessed as a proximity foster family (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and given significant progress since the date of the application, the Director recommends that the

child be gradually reintegrated to his mother’s care no later than March 21, 2020, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Cloutier, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The child’s father is not declared on his birth certificate. [ 7 ] Me Harvey, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-8 to D-13 as evidence: D-8: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated May 8, 2018; D-9: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated November 16, 2018; D-10: Second Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated March 14, 2019; D-11: Third Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated September 17, 2019; D-12: Parental Capacity Assessment, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated November 18, 2019; D-13: Fourth Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated January 15, 2020. [ 9 ] In

summary, the mother who was only sixteen when her son was born, has maintained a strong bond with her child while he was entrusted to his maternal grandmother’s care. [ 10 ] Although the mother did not succeed in her initial attempts to offer the child the stability he required, her most recent parental capacity assessment illustrates the significant progress she has made, as noted by the staff at [Organism A] where she resides: During a telephone contact with the undersigned on November 14, 2019, Ms. D reported that she had been Ms.

A primary caseworker when she was initially at [Organism A] (Dec 2016 to March 2017). Ms. D has been her primary caseworker since she returned to [Organism A] on May 1, 2018. Ms. D reports she has seen a significant improvement since Ms. A returned to [Organism A] and that Ms. A was not ready for autonomy when she first came to the resource (i.e. she didn’t keep appointments, she was not attending required activities, and she was not keeping her space clean). Ms. A was able to acknowledge her lack of readiness and it was decided to give her another chance. The changes are “like night and day”. Ms.

A is reported to consistently attend appointments with Ms. D, she actively participates in activities at [Organism A] (i.e. groups related to health and safety, cooking, parenting). She attends outings with X and the group (i.e. apple picking, waterpark, Granby Zoo, Cabane a sucre). Ms. A is reported to be doing very well with X. She is prepared with food and clothing; she is sensitive to his cues (i.e. when he is tired she doesn’t push him) . Her interactions are appropriate and she supervises him adequately.

From March 2019 to September 2019 she has had one weekend a month with X and in September 2019, her visits were increased to three nights a week (Thursday to Sunday). Ms. D reports that Ms. A is able to budget in order to pay rent and purchase groceries. There has never been a complaint about noise and Ms. A does not have many visitors (only a few close friends and Ms. B). This is reported to be in contrast with her behavior at the resource when she first attended. Ms. D indicated that Ms.

A would be able to remain at [Organism A] for 1-2 more years and she will still have access to post-stay services after she leaves (i.e. activities and meetings with her primary worker). Ms. D emphasized she does not have the same concerns as [Center A] regarding Ms. A parenting abilities [2] (emphasis added). [ 11 ] As summarized in the parental capacity assessment: In comparison with the prior assessment in 2015, Ms. A has made changes in her lifestyle choices in order to provide X with consistency and stability, as well as safety from harm.

She ended a relationship of conjugal violence and reported she plans to pursue counseling for victims of violence. [3] [ 12 ] Moreover, the child’s relationship with his mother is observed to be warm and nurturing: […] she played with him appropriately and at his level of understanding in a child-centered manner. Her tone was soft, she made good eye contact, and responded to his cues adequately. [4] […] X looks happy and relaxed with Ms.

A. [5] [ 13 ] The assessment concludes that the mother can be expected to meet her son’s needs with the support provided at [Organism A] and all parties agree that it is in the child’s interest to be gradually entrusted to his mother’s care, with the grandmother’s continued support and approval. [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the agreement reached between the parties, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child’s interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ;

AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the kinship foster family of his maternal grandmother; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually integrated to the mother’s care so that a full integration be completed no later than March 21, 2020, on the condition that the mother continue to reside at [Organism A] or equivalent semi-supervised housing approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 19 ] Thereafter, ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother’s care, on the condition that she continue to reside at [Organism A] or equivalent semi-supervised housing approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that a new worker has been assigned to the case; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the recommendations in the parental capacity assessment be followed, more particularly that the mother benefit from conjugal violence counselling, as well as vocational counselling; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on January 31, 2020 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Anthony Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the child Me Francis Cloutier Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: August 16 and November 22, 2018, September 20, 2019 and January 21, 2020 TD/vl