2016 QCCQ 9277, 2016 QCCQ 9277

Protection de la jeunesse — 16457 2016 QCCQ 9277 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 505-41-004603-066 DATE: February 23 rd , 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JUDGE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Petitioner -et- X , born on […], 1999 Child-Respondent -et- A , Mother-Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Section 95 (1), 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 child is 16 years old. He is entrusted to a foster care family until his majority following the last Court order rendered on January 8 th , 2009 and lives with Ms.

B since November 2007. [ 2 ] The last Court order forbade all contacts with the mother except for therapeutic purposes. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) presents a Motion according to section 95(1) of the Youth Protection Act for revision of the Court order previously rendered. [ 4 ] She alleges that it is in the best interest of the child to have contacts with his mother who has been absent from his life for many years. [ 5 ] She recommends that the Court order be modified to allow contacts between the mother and the child upon agreement between the parties. [ 6 ] The child is present and accompanied by Ms B.

The mother is also present, after being assigned by the Court. [ 7 ] All the parties agree with the recommendation of the Director. [ 8 ] Since the last Court order, the child evolves positively in the foster home of Ms. B. He considers her as a psychological parent and wishes to remain in her care until after his majority.

[ 9 ] The proof reveals that approximately two years following the last Court order, the Director made attempts to have the mother participate in a family therapy with the approval of the child’s psychiatrist. However, when the child told his mother that he felt she had abandoned him, she reacted in a negative manner. The Director didn’t hear from her for a period of one year. [ 10 ] From late 2011 until May 2015, the mother contacted the child via Facebook, even though she was aware of the measures ordered. [ 11 ] The Director had several conversations with her during which she agreed to respect the Court order.

However, she did not respect her word and arranged secret meetings with her son, more particularly in 2014. [ 12 ] Since the month of May 2015, the mother has been collaborating with the Director. She respects and understands that the Director must be involved in the re-establishment of the contacts. [ 13 ] The mother has made some positives changes and wishes to have a certain role in her child’s life. [ 14 ] Ms. B explains that she had a constructive conversation with the mother prior to the hearing.

She thinks that she has very good intentions and understands that she can’t impinge the stability of her son. [ 15 ] The child wishes to have contacts with his mother. All the parties agree to have a mediation process with the Director in order to make sure these visits are positive. [ 16 ] The measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest.

X has found a loving and secure home and can now try to develop a relationship with his mother under the supervision of the Director, who will make sure that it evolves in a positive way. [ 17 ] Despite her past, it is still time for the mother to play a positive role in her child’s life. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the present motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the child X still in danger for abandonment and neglect on the educational level; [ 20 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on January 8 th , 2009; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs.

B; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child and his mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES Mrs.

B to sign the authorizations required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport, driving lessons, driver’s licence and social insurance number; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE, until […] 2017. __________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q. Me Julie Langlois Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Marie-Pierre Blouin Lawyer for the child