2020 QCCQ 9975, 2020 QCCQ 9975

Protection de la jeunesse — 201471 2020 QCCQ 9975 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division » No: 640-41-002350-194 DATE: January 24, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director Youth Protection A. APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2018.

CHILD and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (The Director) submitted an application to the Court in order for the security and development of the child declared to be in danger under sections 38 b) (1) iii) and b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director alleged a long series of facts.

This judgment refers to those facts. [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the Court entrust the child to her current foster home until May 31, 2020. [ 4 ] The mother admits most of the facts alleged in the motion. She consents to the measures proposed. She doesn’t have a place to reunite with her daughter. She wishes that, as soon as possible, her daughter be entrusted to a foster family up north because it is difficult to have contact with her. [ 5 ] On behalf of the child, Mtre.

Laurence Migué considers that the recommendations are in the best interest of the child given that she has been entrusted to her current foster family since December 2018. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals the following facts: [ 7 ] The child is one year and a half. [ 8 ] Since the applicant did not file any evaluation report on the reasons for the situation of the child to be declared compromised and only referred the Court to the voluntary measures as evidence, but filed a revision report to support an application under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court had to remind the Director’s lawyer of her burden of proof with regards to a declaration of endangerment. [ 9 ] On July 6, 2018, when the child was only 8 days old, she was placed in a foster home on emergency placement.

She remains placed since then. [ 10 ] Her parents display alcohol consumption issues. [ 11 ] On several occasions, the Youth Protection Worker noticed the presence of drugs in the family’s household. [ 12 ] On August 8, 2018, the parents signed an agreement on voluntary measures in which they admitted their alcohol consumption issues; that there is conjugal violence in their home; they admitted that they need social services and that their child needs to develop in a good environment. They also agreed that the child remain in foster care.

[ 13 ] At the beginning of December 2018, the mother started a mother-and-child program with the child at [Centre A]. [ 14 ] However, on December 17, the mother wanted to leave the program and the child had to be once again entrusted to a foster family down south given that the child was very sick and had to be hospitalized. She has been entrusted to the foster family of Mrs. C and is under her care since then. [ 15 ] Nonetheless, the evidence is silent about how long the child was sick to the point of being hospitalized and why she had to remain entrusted to Mrs.

C. [ 16 ] The Director files an assessment with regards to the attachment of the child in her foster home. Dr. Carolyn Klein assessed the bond and the attachment of the child. [ 17 ] The attachment between the child and Mrs. D, her foster mother, is secure and it is a protective factor in Isabelle’s development. Dr. Klein’s recommendation is to not break this bond because doing so would be to put the child at great risk of emotional difficulty throughout her life. The child shares a close attachment to her foster mother and her sisters.

To remove her from this setting would be damaging to her emotional and social development and would likely cause a regression to occur. In addition, the other foster children in Mrs. D’s home are also of Inuit heritage and Mrs. D is aware of the importance of maintaining the culture in the child’s life. [ 18 ] It has been submitted by the mother’s and the child’s lawyers that they are in a situation of ‘fait accompli’. [ 19 ] The Court cannot conclude differently. [ 20 ] The child has been entrusted to this family in an emergency context under voluntary measures signed on August 8, 2018.

She was kept in this family without a judgment establishing that the security and development of the child were endangered. The only judgment that was rendered was a judgment on provisional measures in July 2019.

The first time the Court assessed the situation of endangerment is at the hearing on January 24, 2020. [ 21 ] The application presents an evidence of the strong attachment between the child and her foster home and, at the same time, submits that the goal of the present recommendation to keep the child in the same foster home is to stabilize the child in her current foster family and see, in the next months, if there is a possibility of reintegrating her with her parents. [ 22 ] Time passes and if it is truly the objective of the Director, there should be a minimum of contact ordered by the Tribunal between the child and her parents. [ 23 ] Given the age of the child, the fact that she is entrusted to the same foster family since December 2018, given that the mother gave her consent to the recommendation, but wishes to have contact with her child, the Court concludes that the recommendations of the Director are in the best interest of the child in order to stabilize her.

But, to keep the link with the mother, the Director will have to organize regular contacts between the child and her mother. THEREFORE, THE COURT; [ 24 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of the child are endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) (1) iii) and b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the current foster home; [ 26 ] ORDERS contacts between the child and the mother once every two months for the duration of the order; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother continues to search for help through Social Services concerning her alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 30 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and her family until May 31, 2020; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director Youth Protection A who shall see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town A on March____ 2020 ________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. Mtre. Karianne Asselin Cain Lamarre – Town B Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Laurence Migué Legal Aid Office – Town B Attorney for the child Mtre. Alexander Grey (en remplacement de Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Yves Ménard avocats inc. Attorney for the mother Mr. B Father, not represented Date of hearing: January 24, 2020