2020 QCCQ 13410, 2020 QCCQ 13410

Protection de la jeunesse — 209343 2020 QCCQ 13410 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002235-189 DATE: October 9, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 7, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on January 23, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered, entrusted the child to her current foster family and authorized her reintegration into her mother’s care as soon as possible at the condition that she lived at Elizabeth’s House. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and recommends entrusting her to a foster family until October 31, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Neptune.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, and the steps taken by the DYP worker to insure his presence, the father is absent and not represented. Considering the agreement of the parties and the best interest of the child, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. On her client’s behalf and after hearing the evidence, Me Tommasel submits that the situation remains endangered and that the measures are in her best interest.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On November 8, 2018 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family on provisional measures. [ 7 ] On December 11, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 3 months old. The mother was 15 years old and the father 18 years old. The mother started consuming alcohol one year before and the father six years before. On [...], when X was 12 days old, the parents were intoxicated and the father assaulted the mother with the baby in her amautik. The baby had to be brought to the nursing.

The day after the parents signed a voluntary measure and the baby was entrusted to the biological maternal grandmother for ten days. After other events of violence and consumption, the baby was entrusted to the maternal grandfather, but he also has alcohol issues, and short after was evicted from his apartment. The mother had important financial difficulties. In December, the baby was entrusted to the adoptive maternal grandmother and short after, entrusted to a specialized foster family.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster home until September 30, 2019. [ 8 ] On September 23, 2019 , the Court prolonged the placement on provisional measures. On November 19, 2019 , the Court prolonged again the measures as the mother gave birth two days before and was in intensive care.

[ 9 ] On January 23, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was able to refrain her alcohol consumption, but she was in a violent conjugal relationship. She works at the specialized foster family where the child is entrusted, so she has daily contact with her and also sleepovers, but the main issue is the fact that the mother has no safe place to receive her child. The mother has good parental capacities. The father has consumption issues and was not involved in his daughter’s life. The DYP found a place for the mother to stay where she could also go to school.

The mother completed the steps to go there. The Court entrusted the child to her current foster family until the mother entrust the Elizabeth House’s facility. The Court ordered that the environment of Ms. C be assess to allow the mother to have her daughter there earlier, the whole for a period of nine months. Facts [ 10 ] After the last hearing, X remained for a while at the specialized foster family. She was developing well.

The mother continued to be very present and doing so, the bonds between her and her daughter continued to strengthen. [ 11 ] The mother continued to struggle with her personal issues: substance abuse, aggressive behaviour and domestic violence. As before, she tried her best to improve her situation, but unfortunately she cannot count on reliable extended family members to support her and to host her. [ 12 ] On February 3, 2020, the mother went to Town A to visit Elizabeth’s House. Dr. Beltempo and the Social worker went there with her. She was very excited to go there with her daughter.

The mother was supposed to integrate this resource on March 20, 2020, and X on March 27, 2020, but due to Coronavirus pandemic, the situation and the agenda were reviewed. [ 13 ] As the mother suggested the possibility to entrust X to Ms. C, a relative, the DYP started the evaluation. The evaluation was positive, but still due to the Public Health measures, it was not possible to do a progressive integration between the specialized foster family and Ms. C’s place. [ 14 ] Finally, on April 29, 2020, Elizabeth’s House accepted to receive the mother and X with a quarantine.

The steps were taken for the mother and the child to travel. In the interval, the contacts between the mother and the child were increased. Both arrived on May 29, 2020, in Town A. [ 15 ] Unfortunately, a few days later, the mother had a breakdown and she cried a lot. She was overwhelmed by her emotions and was not available anymore to take good care of X. The mother decided to come back and arrived to Town B on June 10, 2020, with X. [ 16 ] X was integrated to Ms. C’s place and the mother was very present and facilitated the integration. As being an extended family member, Ms.

C welcome the mother easily at her place and anytime she needs help with X, the mother is there. X cries when her mother leave the house. [ 17 ] The DYP worker testify that a reintegration is not possible in the situation of X considering she is now well integrated in a foster family and she needs stability. She recognizes that the mother has very good parental capacities for a short period, but she is unable to take care of a child on a permanent basis and she has no safe place to stay. Moreover, the foster family is very open for extended access rights, so this solution would be the best for X.

For the DYP worker, “the mother is a very good babysitter.” X is well integrated and calls both her mother and Ms. C, “Annana [2] .” [ 18 ] The mother is 17 years old. She is followed by the DYP herself, her situation being declared endangered. Questioned about the place where she is entrusted to, the answer provided was not clear and she seems to sleep where she can. [ 19 ] Fortunately, the mother is aware of the services she could receive and she is proactive to receive it. She has a follow-up for her addiction issues through the Social Services. Analysis [ 20 ] X’s situation remains endangered.

Integration with the mother in a specialized resource was tried. Unfortunately it was not a success. [ 21 ] The DYP submits that the plan for the future is too fully integrated X at Ms. C’s place in a way to proceed with a long-term placement there in one year. For this reason, the DYP does not plan to work on a reintegration with the mother. [ 22 ] The Court disagrees with this plan for a few reasons. [ 23 ] Firstly, the mother is very young, but despite her young age, she has very good parental capacities.

The bonds between her and her daughter are very strong, she is the one capable to reinsure the child when she cries. Also, as requested by Ms. C, the mother’s presence was needed to facilitate X’s integration. [ 24 ] It is true to say that a reintegration was tried. But can we say that the conditions of this reintegration were optimal? The Court does not think so. The pandemic situation made the mother being prepared twice for this integration.

The installations of Elizabeth’s House are in Town A and the mother had to go there alone with her daughter without knowing anyone, without knowing her environment, with all the restriction imposed by the Public Health and also surrounded by people not speaking her language. Indeed, it is important to mention that the hearing was translated because the mother does not speak fluently in English. [ 25 ] The mother is followed by the DYP because her parents have personal issues. She has no reliable people around her to support her. The only model she has is relative with addiction issues.

Despite, she does her best to resolve her issues, but she has no safe place to stay, she has no other choice than to live with those people. [ 26 ] Can we reproach her this situation? No.

[ 27 ] The Court is not ready to say that this placement is the step before a long-term one and remind the objective of the YPA, particularly the

section 4: 4. Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. [ 28 ] For sure, currently, the child is doing very well with Ms. C and considering the prescription of the YPA and C-92 ( Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families ), it is in the child’s best interest that she remains there. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, continue to be endangered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms. C and if Ms.

C is accredited as a foster family, that the child be entrusted to her as such; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES and ENCOURAGES regular and frequent contacts between the child and the mother; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 9, 2020