2012 QCCQ 19264, 2012 QCCQ 19264

Protection de la jeunesse — 128399 2012 QCCQ 19264 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY A Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004154-129 DATE: November 19, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...], 2012 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision and extension of a Court decision rendered on May 4, 2012, concerning the minor child X, born on [...], 2012.

This decision provides measures of aid and assistance to the child and his family for a

period of 6 months and his entrustment to foster care. The parent's contacts are determined specifically in default of an agreement. [ 2 ] The motion submits that the security and the development of the child are still in danger and that the extension of the protective measures is necessary for a period of one year. The Director further submits that the child's best interests dictate a suspension of the parent's contacts as well as the elaboration of a permanency plan. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions as to the motion in the Court record. The father doesn't contest the measures, as concerns himself.

The mother, duly represented by attorney, requests the maintenance of her contacts and her bond with her child. The attorney for the child agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] The child resides in foster care since his release from the hospital following his birth.

His progression is positive, although he maintains medical difficulties requiring numerous follow-ups, namely: • Physiotherapist • Genetitian • Oto-rhino-laryngologist • Physician • Paediatrician • Neuropsychologist [ 6 ] In October, he is transferred in his present foster home, which is ready to invest him on a long-term basis. [ 7 ] The parents remain a couple. [ 8 ] The father decides to not invest the relationship with his son, although the Court affords him the opportunity. He ceases his implication as to the intervention.

On April 5, 2012, while under advisement, he signs a consent to adoption. [ 9 ] Due to the mother's unavailability, it is impossible for the worker to meet with her before July 16, 2012, resulting in a four- month period of absence of contacts. The mother cites various personal difficulties, which don't allow her to see her son at the frequency determined by the Court. The parties agree to

schedule access once a month. [ 10 ] Since the last Court order, the mother sees her son on four occasions. She is attentive and affectionate towards him. She offers gifts at every visit. The mother communicates regularly with the foster family for news. [ 11 ] The mother continues to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding as to her son's needs. During the visits, she requires constant aid and supervision to fully address her son's requirements and respond adequately to him. [ 12 ] X reacts negatively to the visits.

Although he arrives calm and happy, as the visit progresses, he becomes agitated, cries and is inconsolable by his mother. Intervention by the worker or the foster parent calms the child. [ 13 ] The mother accepts coaching during the visits, which fails to improve the situation.

She doesn't see the need to follow parenting classes nor to receive any type of services. [ 14 ] In November, the mother asks for a visit with her son, stating that she wishes this to be the last, as it is too emotionally difficult for her. [ 15 ] At the hearing, the mother testifies sincerely as to her affection for her son as well as her ardent wish to maintain a bond with him. Since her son now resides in a foster family in the region A, she considers it too much trouble to see him. She wants to be able to continue to take news of him, phone the foster family and send gifts, to which the other parties agree.

She testifies agreeing that the adoption process continue. [ 16 ] The parent's personal situation is little changed. [ 17 ] The pending proceedings for the institution of a protective regime for the mother are to be the object of a discontinuance, considering the conclusion of acquired stability in relation to the presence of the father.

Notwithstanding, the mother's social worker from the CLSC A cites that the mother remains vulnerable and at risk, requiring vigilance as to her situation. (Letter CLSC A dated July 5, 2012, pièce M-1). [ 18 ] The father's abandonment and the mother's personal limitations demonstrate that the security and the development of the child remain in danger, justifying that he remain in foster care, where he receives response to his specific needs. [ 19 ] Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that maintaining parental contacts would respond to the mother's needs, and not the child's.

X's responses to the contacts establish clearly that these moments are neither fulfilling nor positive for him. [ 20 ] The Court's decision must evaluate the child's best interests and needs from his standpoint. [ 21 ] The circumstances negate the creation of a substantial bond between X and his parents. As the mother recognizes no need for services, the Court considers that the prognosis is somber as to an improvement of her parental capacities and consequent ability to

become a significant presence in his life. [ 22 ] At this juncture, the child's best interests dictate that the intervention no longer pursue contacts with his parents and that the Director proceed to the elaboration of a permanent life plan.

The Court takes act that the parties agree that the mother may continue to communicate with the foster family in view of receiving news of her son, as well as send gifts. [ 23 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year; [ 27 ] FORBIDS all contacts between the parents and the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child receive health services required by his situation, namely follow-ups by a genetician, an oto-rhino- laryngologist, a physiotherapist, a paediatrician and a neuro-psychologist; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his parents for a period of one year; [ 30 ] TAKES ACT of the agreement of the parties allowing the mother to communicate with the foster family, at a frequency to be determined by mutual agreement, in order to receive news of the child; [ 31 ] TAKES ACT of the agreement of the parties allowing the mother to send gifts for the child; [ 32 ] TAKES ACT of the elaboration of a permanent life plan for the child; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Gaston Veilleux Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 19, 2012