2017 QCCQ 18544, 2017 QCCQ 18544

Protection de la jeunesse — 178933 2017 QCCQ 18544 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000246-083 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2007 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 the order rendered on October 3, 2016, in respect of the child. His brother is aimed by the same demand. The parties agree to present a common proof. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present but not represented. She admits that the fact represents the actual situation. She also agrees with the recommendations of the DYP.

Furthermore, consents to the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 3 ] Regarding the father, the DYP was not able to notify him the demand, since he is nowhere to be found, so they request to be dispense of the serving. The social worker tried several times to reach him, unsuccessfully. At some point, she manages to obtain his phone number through the mother, but every time she calls, there is no answer. The last time she tried was last week.

Until this day, no communication was possible with the father. [ 4 ] Even though, the mother who use to have contact with him, does not have any more news since mid-October. Moreover, the DYP used a specialized firm to retrace him without any results. For those reasons and in the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed. The Court will dispense the serving of this application to the father. [ 5 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent with the measures proposed by the DYP except concerning the following conclusion that are not sustained by the evidence. • ORDERS that the child receive all the medical, psychological and therapeutic cares he needs; • AUTHORIZED the professionals involved in the child’s situation to exchange information regarding the child between themselves; [ 6 ] The DYP has been involved with the family since 2007.

On May 29, 2015, a judgment was rendered entrusting the child to their aunt C until majority. [ 7 ] On August 12, 2016, the DYP was informed that the foster family was not suitable anymore for the child. There was a situation of neglect regarding the house, hygiene and educational neglect due to a lack of supervision from the foster family.

[ 8 ] The DYP was already informed since November 26, 2014, that the children were living in an unsanitary condition and also neglected. At that time, measures were taken by the DYP to try to resolve the situation. [ 9 ] It seems that the on-going situation since November 2014, still prevails to this day. There was not sufficient changes in the foster family’s environment to be able to maintain the child in this household even if he has a good bond with his aunt.

This mainly being the reason for which at the time the child was not immediately removed from her care. [ 10 ] On August 15, 2016, the child was entrusted under an immediate protective measure to another foster family as his brother. The order was extended for which the child still resides to this day in the same foster family. [ 11 ] The child is doing very well in the foster family. He is improving every day. He does not spend his time protecting his brother anymore. In school, he has academic delays but he is doing better.

He gets teacher’s aid, one hour per day. [ 12 ] The mother of the foster family finds both children adorable and has a good bond with them. She is willing to keep both children until their majority. She collaborates well with the DYP and informs them of the evolution of the child. She also attends the appointments with the child. She takes care of the visits with both parents. [ 13 ] The mother herself is pleased with the change of foster family. She feels more involved and implicated in her children lives than before. She finds the children gentler and kinder with her.

Their behavior are changing positively and agreeably. She has a good relation with the foster family. She attends her children’s appointments when required. [ 14 ] The child is ten years old and faces many challenges. He presents trauma issues due to chronic and gross neglect, deprivation and under stimulation at a very early age. He use to show, on an irregular basis, destructive behavior but now shows great improvement since his placement in the new foster family. [ 15 ] Furthermore, the child needs a stable, secure and nurturing environment on a long term basis in order to develop to his full potential.

The parents are not able to provide such a place for the present and the future. They are not able to provide for all the children’s needs and this has been the case for a very long time. [ 16 ] The children are now entrusted in a family who can provide them love, care, stability and the supervision required for their age.

They are doing great and improving more every day since their placement in this foster family. [ 17 ] Concerning the conclusions about medical follow-ups and the exchange of information between the professional, the Court is in agreement with this position of the child’s lawyer, because the evidence demonstrates that the mother always collaborates well with the all the services required for her child. For this motive, the Court will not follow those specific conditions above related. [ 18 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the youth are still in danger.

Under the circumstances and considering the admission and consent of the parties, the application is well founded. All the other suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 20 ] DISPENSES the serving of the application for revision and extension of order to the father; [ 21 ] DECLARE that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 22 ] REVISES ET EXTENDS the Court order rendered on October 3, 2016; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the foster family of Mrs.

D until the child’s majority on [...], 2025; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the duration of the contacts between the parents and the child be determined following an agreement between the parties, including their supervision if deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the DYP in order to end the situation of endangerment regarding the child; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until [...], 2025; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet

for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: November 6, 2017 Whitten judgment filed on November 15, 2017