2022 QCCQ 12067, 2022 QCCQ 12067

Protection de la jeunesse — 227101 2022 QCCQ 12067 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001841-144 DATE: October 19, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […] 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father and C Interested Party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION ( sections 95(1) (2) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR., c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection applied under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] for the extension of a decision rendered o n May 28, 2021, by the Honourable Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q. At that time, she declared that the security and development of X were still in danger. She entrusted the child to the kinship foster family of C until July 15, 2022. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother was absent but duly notified and was informed many times of the court date. The Court allowed the Director to procced in her absence. The father was assisted by counsel. C was present but not assisted by counsel.

All the parties admitted that the security and development of the child are still in danger and agreed to the measures suggested by the Director. [ 3 ] The following facts were introduced in evidence: [ 4 ] Since the last Court hearing, the situation of the mother has remained the same. She is still struggling with alcohol consumption and is disinvested from the life of the child. She doesn't seek help to address her personal issues. She is unable to take steps to reintroduce contact with the child.

The child considers her mother to be C and does not know her biological mother. [ 5 ] The father works as a delivery driver and has a varying schedule. He sees the child during the weekend with other family members. He agrees with the measures and knows that it would be devasting for the child if she were separated from her foster mother. [ 6 ] The parents’ collaboration with Youth Protection is irregular. [ 7 ] The child still has developmental delays, but she is receiving the services she needs. The foster mother cares for the child and considers X as her own daughter.

She was welcoming and transparent about the situation, follow-ups and some miscommunications from the past. The Director’s case worker changed often in past years and that certainly did not help communication. The applicant said that their involvement will be to help and ensure that Ms. C keeps doing the follow-up with the specialists. The follow-up with the specialists and with the applicant is a heavy burden for the foster mother considering that there are many follows-up appointments: speech therapy, education, art therapy, occupation therapy, school and medical appointments.

The child is making progress and all the specialists are in place. Ms. C is well invested and is open with all these follows-ups. The bond between the foster mother and the child is strong.

[ 8 ] After considering the documentary evidence, the testimony and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to declare that the security and development of the child are still in danger and that the measures suggested meet her needs and are deemed to be in her best interest. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the application; [ 10 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on May 28, 2021; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger under

section 38(b)(1)()iii) and 38(b)(2) of the Youth Protection Act [2] ; [ 12 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely C until she reaches the age of 18 years; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Direction of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drug, and personal issues; [ 17 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to C, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institute on or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 20 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this judgment; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] The whole until […], 2032 . __________________________________ NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q.

Mtre Adèle Cyr Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the D.Y.P. Mtre Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Counsel for the child Mtre Justine Bergeron Yves Ménard Avocats inc. Counsel for the father C Interested Party Date of hearing: October 19, 2022