2020 QCCQ 6404, 2020 QCCQ 6404

Protection de la jeunesse — 205209 JL 4825 2020 QCCQ 6404 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Chamber »

No: 650-41-003340-201 DATE: October 28, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : MADAM JUSTICE VICKY LAPIERRE, J.C.Q. (JL 4825) ______________________________________________________________________ X , Child v. [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , authorized person for the Youth protection director, exercising her functions at Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, district A, Plaintiff A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ CORRECTED JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION (Sections 38 and 75 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is presented with a court application for protection pursuant to

section 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act (YPA). [ 2 ] The child was born on May 26, 2020, and is now approximately five months old [1] . With the exception of one of them who is now an adult, all his brothers and sisters are entrusted to an alternative living environment according to YPA. This includes his 3-year- old sister, Y, which has many specific health care and services needs and which is entrusted to her paternal grandparents C and D (the grandparents) nearly since her birth. The bond between Y and her grandparents is very strong.

The grandparents usually live in Town A, a [...] community. [ 3 ] The grandparents moved from Town A to Town B area especially for Y to receive health care and services. [ 4 ] The mother demonstrates an unstable lifestyle with a long history of alcohol and drug consumption. X was born with withdrawal symptoms in consequence of the mother’s addiction to drugs. X was positive at THC, amphetamines and meta-amphetamines when he was born.

In consequence of his medical condition, he needs specific health care and services on a regular basis. [ 5 ] The father had relapsed following a therapy for alcohol and drug addiction. When X was born, the father, while strongly intoxicated, was expelled from the delivery room. [ 6 ] Both parents have so much personal challenges and difficulties that they are not able to take charge of the child and can’t respond to all his needs. Even having contact with X on a regular basis is a challenge to them. [ 7 ] The YPD is now asking for the child to be entrusted to a foster family, where he already lives.

The child, by its lawyer, agrees with the YPD. The father is asking the Court to entrust the child to his grandparents where his sister Y is currently living.

[ 8 ] The parties agree that the security and development of the child is in danger. ISSUE IN DISPUTE [ 9 ] The Court has to decide, in the best interest of the child, whether the child should be entrusted to his grandparents or to a foster family. ANALYSIS [ 10 ] For the YPD, it is obvious that the grandparents love their grandchildren. However, the YPD considers that the age of the grandparents (60 years old for the grandfather) is a problem also as the fact that the grandmother has a diabetic diagnosis.

The YPD's concern is related to the grandparents’ capacity to ensure continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions for Y and X . [ 11 ] The YPD also brings into evidence that Y was not fed adequately by the grandparents, drinking too much milk, among others. [Social Worker 1]’s pretention is that the introduction of the solid food was unduly delayed, and could have caused the health problems of Y, such as the septic shock. It is written in her report and included in her testimony where she refers to the opinion of a nutritionist.

We do not know the name of that health professional. [ 12 ] However, there was no objection to that part of the evidence, and for the Court, it is clearly hearsay. As any testimony, the evaluation of the probative force is left to the appraisal of the Court [2] . It is important to keep in mind that the admissibility of evidence does not necessarily give immediate probative force [3] . That last evaluation is different and left to the Court. [ 13 ] There is no valid medical evidence of the cause of the septic shock and its consequences.

No medical report was introduced in evidence nor no qualified witness on that point. [ 14 ] The same reason for the Court applies to the alleged lack of stimulation regarding Y from the grandparents. There are many suppositions but not sufficient to render the existence of this fact more probable than its non-existence [4] .

The evidence also reveals that the grandfather attended the large majority of the many appointments required by Y, missing only some of them for good reasons (the Covid-19 pandemic, as an example). [ 15 ] The Court is satisfied that the grandparents have a real and strong affective bond with Y and that they are really devoted to her. The fact that they moved away from their community to ensure that she receives all the health care and services specifically needed is also relevant and significant. [ 16 ] The YPD, according to

section 91.1 YPA, had a reflection about a long-term project for Y. The YPD comes to the conclusion that the grandparents do not respond to its criteria for that kind of project for her. Among others, the YPD alleges the age of the grandparents, their health situation, the lack of collaboration with the YPD, the lack of stimulation of Y and her specific needs. The YPD comes to the conclusion that both Y and X should be entrusted to a foster family. [ 17 ] The Court has already discussed the allege lack of stimulation for Y.

Regarding the age of the grandparents, the evidence reveals that the grandfather is 60 years old and is in a good health condition. The grandmother has diabetes but it is under control. Recently, the collaboration between the YPD and the grandparents has been difficult [5] . It concurs with the announcing of the new project for Y with whom the grandparents have a really strong bond.

Before that, the situation has been quite different with Ms. [Social Worker 1] from the YPD with whom the collaboration was generally good. [ 18 ] Regarding X , the evidence reveals that he has spent approximately 2 weeks with his grandparents when the native foster family was traveling in [Province A]. It was out of the knowledge of the YPD. It is obvious that the grandparents love X and care for him. [ 19 ] The evidence also demonstrates that the grandparents generally respond to the numerous and specific needs of Y. They have to attend many appointments.

In the next few months, they will have to continue to do so. They will also have to collaborate with the YPD. [ 20 ] The Court shares the opinion of Ms. Gaudreau, X's lawyer, regarding the alternative living environment where he should be, as the current native foster family where he receives respond to his needs. [ 21 ] Like his older sister, X needs many specific health care and services. The grandparents already have to answer all the specific needs required by Y. For the time being , having to respond daily to both of the children specific needs would be an arduous task.

The Court is of the opinion that it would now put both of the children at risk of instability, regarding their particular situation. X is still a newborn, and the next months will give more information about the evolution of his health situation. [ 22 ] Despite this decision regarding the alternative living environment for X , the Court is of the opinion that the grandparents are very significant people in the child’s life.

It is why the contacts between X and his grandparents should be supported, as they should be with his older sister, Y. [ 23 ] According to all the discussed evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that it is in the best child’s interest to stay in his current native foster family. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child is in danger ( 38 b ) (2) serious risk of neglect, 38

c) psychological ill-treatment); [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family for a period of 9 months;

[ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his family for a period of 9 months; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents take place under the supervision of the Youth protection director, for the required time; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child receives all the required specific health care and health services; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of the parental authority from the parents and GRANTS the Youth protection director or the person she appoints the parental authority to consent to health care and health services; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS to the Youth protection director to support the contacts between the child and his grandparents, C and D; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS to the Youth protection director to support the contacts between the child and his sister, Y; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Youth protection director for the execution of the present decision. __________________________________ VICKY LAPIERRE, J.C.Q.

Lyne Monger Attorney for the Youth Protection Chantal Gaudreau Attorney for the child Mother absent and not represented Michel Savard Attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 18 th , 2020.