2017 QCCQ 17082, 2017 QCCQ 17082

Protection de la jeunesse — 177640 2017 QCCQ 17082 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41- 031020-167 DATE : August 29, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2016 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 August 29 th , 2017. [ 2 ] In April 2017, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of an application for revision and extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on May 20 th , 2016. The Director is asking that the child remain entrusted to a confidential foster family for a period of one year and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for the same period of time. [ 3 ] The father is of unknown address.

He was not notified of the application and his position is unknown to the Director. [ 4 ] The mother received notification of the application, was made aware of the court date but is absent at Court. Her position is unknown to the Director. [ 5 ] Counsel for the child makes no admission on the facts alleged in support of the application but agrees with the continued entrustment of the child in confidential foster care. The lawyer highlights the fact that maximum duration of placement have been reached and that the Director did not provide evidence to support placement until majority of the child.

CONTEXT [ 6 ] Despite multiple attempts made by the workers to reach the parents, the father’s whereabouts remain unknown. He never contacted the Director. He has been totally absent from the life of the child.

[ 7 ] The whereabouts of the mother remained unknown to the Director except when the mother was admitted to Pinel Institute (from December 21 st 2016 until February 1 st 2017) and later on at Hôpital Notre-Dame . [ 8 ] On January 20 th , 2017, with the help of a worker from the Pinel Institute, the mother contacted the youth worker to inquire about her son’s wellbeing. The mother was to call the worker a few days later to

schedule a meeting with her son. She left the Pinel Institute on February 1 st 2017 without calling back the worker. [ 9 ] The mother was to attend a drug rehabilitation program. Verifications made confirmed that she never registered in said program. [ 10 ] The worker continued her efforts to try and locate the parents. In April 2017, the mother phoned the worker informing her that she had been transferred from Pinel to CHUM Notre-Dame. The mother requested to have visits with her son as well as to be provided with photos of him.

The worker offered to meet with the mother at the hospital in order to discuss her requests as well as the necessity to establish a permanent plan for the child. The mother hung up the phone on the worker. Efforts made by the worker to try and reach the mother again were to no avail. [ 11 ] The parents have not taken the steps to correct their situation. The whereabouts of the father have remained unknown. The mother has contacted twice the worker to request contacts but never followed through.

Otherwise, she did not manifest herself in any way to care for the child nor to inquire about his wellbeing. [ 12 ] The child is doing well in his foster family and thrives in the care of the foster parents. His needs are met. The foster parents offer their collaboration to the Director. They are committed to the child on a long-term basis. Adoption has been discussed as early as February 2017 yet no steps have been taken to initiate legal proceedings in order to proceed with adoption. [ 13 ] As per

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , the total period of foster care for the child may not exceed twelve months. The first decision was rendered on May 20 th , 2016. The maximum duration of placement expired on May 20 th , 2017. [ 14 ] The Director is asking that the Tribunal disregard the total period of placement allowed to extend it for another period of one year.

When asked why, the worker explains that a permanent plan has to be made and that adoption proceedings will be initiated in the near future. [ 15 ] It is only by exception that the Tribunal may disregard the periods of foster care imposed by the Law. [ 16 ] The Tribunal was seized of this application for revision and extension on April 11 th , 2017. The Director did not take advantage of this period of time to put in action the permanent plan chosen for the child.

It is only the neglect of the Director to take action and to respect the maximum duration of placement imposed by the Law that forces the Tribunal to extend the foster care order for the child. As a measure of exception, the Tribunal will certainly not grant an extension of one year when the Law provides for a placement of maximum twelve months. Time is of essence and the Director did not take steps to put in action the permanent plan chosen in a timely fashion. [ 17 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the child are still compromised.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal urges the Director to put in place a permanent plan for the child and extends placement for a limited period of time.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] 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: [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted in a confidential foster family for a period of six (6) months; [ 20 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the child and his parents; [ 21 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority pertaining to medical, psychosocial (including daycare) and travel issues (including a request for a passport) and GRANTS the foster parents these attributes of parental authority; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his parents for a period of six (6) months. [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of child 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 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Liette Robillard Attorney for the child Date of hearing : August 29 th , 2017