2020 QCCQ 12772, 2020 QCCQ 12772

Protection de la jeunesse — 209242 2020 QCCQ 12772 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-006307-204 DATE: October 14, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2020 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON APPLICABLE MEASURES ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Following a contested hearing on July 28, 2020, the Court declares that the security and the development of the child X is in danger in reason of the serious risk of neglect resulting from her parent’s personal situations and lifestyle. [ 2 ] Before the parent’s promises to cooperate fully with social services and be consistent as to visitation with their daughter and deal with their various issues, the Court renders an interim order in view of better evaluating the evolution of the child’s situation. [ 3 ] Alleging that the parents fail to engage themselves in the rehabilitation of the situation, the Director of Youth Protection seeks a six (6) month order with various protective measures including that the child remains with a kinship foster family. [ 4 ] Although well aware of the hearing date and offered means to participate, the parents are not available.

The Court proceeds in their absence. [ 5 ] The attorney for the child, acting under a legal mandate, subscribes to the orientation sought by the Director of Youth Protection. Analysis and decision [ 6 ] The child remains with her kinship foster family and is evolving positively in this environment. [ 7 ] Parental visitation is initially scheduled twice a week for one hour, accommodating the parent’s stated work schedules.

Since they cannot come into Canada in reason of their probation orders, visitation is scheduled in various outdoor locations and in a shopping mall in City A, [Country A]. [ 8 ] These visits are mostly positive. The mother is attentive to her daughter and their interactions are affectionate.

The father assumes a more passive role. [ 9 ] Considering the upcoming winter season and the continued pandemic risk, the Director suggests that the visitation occur at the A Program in City B, [Country A], which provides supervised access visits to parents who are involved in child protection court that reside on the [Country A] portion of [Community A]. Although the parents initially agree, they withdraw their consent without offering any alternate plans. [ 10 ] The last visit dates from September 17, 2020.

Since that time, the parents are unavailable for the access periods, giving various reasons justifying their absences.

[ 11 ] Since the last order, the parents offer little effective cooperation. [ 12 ] They assert making certain progress in securing a home, accessing services and applying for their child’s birth certificate. They sign authorizations allowing communications with their respective drug and alcohol counselors, probation officers and access to their drug testing. Unfortunately, they fail to provide the specific names and coordinates permitting to follow through on these authorizations. [ 13 ] Despite many attempts to

schedule meetings in view of discussing their progress and plan for their daughter’s eventual reintegration, the parents only meet with the caseworkers during their supervised access periods. Information given as to their residence and work status is found to be false. Their living situation and relationship status remains unclear. [ 14 ] The caseworker testifies that she receives information to the effect that the mother would have been recently incarcerated.

The father’s whereabouts are uncertain. [ 15 ] Overall, the parents remain consistent in their continued lack of cooperation and investment as to the situation of endangerment. As such, it is not possible to evaluate their home environment nor their ability to ensure a safety plan for their daughter.

As there has been little effective rehabilitation, their sobriety, dynamic and personal situations continue to present a serious risk to their child and justify that she remains in an alternate environment with structured contacts to her parents. [ 16 ] Considering the evidence, the Court endorses the recommendations made by the Director, which are an accurate reflection of the child’s best interests and the objectives of the law.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, AS FINAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the kinship foster family of Ms.C; [ 18 ] ORDERS the contacts between the child and her parents be following mutual agreement between the parties and the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth protection and, in the absence of an agreement, ORDERS that the contacts take place through the A of [Community A]; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to take an active

part in the application of the measures, notably that they accept to meet with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection to inform of their current situations and this, at least once every two weeks; [ 21 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority and AUTORIZES the Director of Youth Protection or [Center A] to sign the authorizations required for medical and travel purposes, including the application for a passport, Tribal status, social insurance number, social security number [Country A]; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 23 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Anne-Catherine Bujold Applicant’s attorney Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: October 14 th , 2020 Date of signature: November 24 th , 2020