2012 QCCQ 12151, 2012 QCCQ 12151

Protection de la jeunesse — 123340 2012 QCCQ 12151 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000414-117 635-41-000415-114 DATE: June 29, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SOCIAL WORKER1, Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. working in A Applicant -and- X & Y, residing and domiciled in B, city A, district A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by Chevalier J. concerning X, born […], 2006 and Y, born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, it is agreed to proceed to a common hearing.

Both children are represented by their lawyer, although only Y is present at the hearing. The mother is also present and represented by her lawyer. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On May 25, 2011, Grégoire J. declared the security and development of X and of Y endangered because the mother did not meet the children's basic needs regarding food, rather spending money on alcohol and drugs. Moreover, the mother assaulted Y as well as Youth Protection workers.

Both children were then entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 4 ] On November 15, 2011, Chevalier J. extended the placement of both children in a foster family due to the mother's poor cooperation with the Youth Protection services as well as her continued way of life pertaining to alcohol and drug use. [ 5 ] The following facts are either admitted or proven on a balance of probabilities. [ 6 ] The situation described in the last judgment concerning the mother's living habits and her attitude towards Youth Protection services remains unchanged.

Following the last judgment the mother was physically abusive towards the Director of Youth Protection's delegate, which led to the arrest of the mother. The family's situation was then taken over by a social worker in A. [ 7 ] The applicant met with the mother in A and explained to her that this was an opportunity for a fresh start. The mother doesn't see things that way and continues to show resistance towards the Youth Protection services. Mrs [social worker 1] tried to convince the mother to follow through with Chevalier's J.'s recommendation regarding a psychological assessment. The mother refuses.

She does not recognize any of her personal shortcomings, which led to the endangerment of the security and development of her children. On the contrary, she holds the delegate of the Director of Youth Protection responsible for the placement of her children. X's particular situation [ 8 ] The child continues to stay in foster care in A. She had to be placed in another family because of the mother's harassing behaviour towards the first foster family. X is presently doing well.

Visits between the mother and the daughter were organized and despite the mother's difficult attitude, it is reported that generally speaking, the visits went well. In order to obtain minimal cooperation from the mother, the applicant chose to deal with the mother's oldest daughter Z, who unlike her mother, collaborates with Youth Protection services.

Y's personal situation [ 9 ] Until recently, Y had been living with an aunt. A few weeks ago, the said aunt flew to city C for personal reasons. It was then agreed that the child would be staying with his sister Z. Upon the aunt's return she decided, after discussion with her husband, to give up Y's fostering. The applicant then decided to entrust Y to Z who is living with her mother, considering she is able to answer the child's needs. [ 10 ] The evidence demonstrates that Y wasn't attending school on a regular basis when he was living with his aunt. His sister Z convinced him to go back.

A part from that, it is reported that Y is doing well and that visits with his mother are positive. [ 11 ] The security and development of both children remain endangered. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 12 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks that both children be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 13 ] The mother doesn’t agree with the proposed measure concerning Y's placement. Obviously, new facts have arisen concerning his foster family. As of now, there is no prospective foster family for Y. The attorneys for the mother and the child suggest that Y be entrusted to his older sister Z.

The applicant recognizes that Z is a good caregiver for Y. However, she is opposed that Z be designated as the main caregiver before her supposed boyfriend B can be approved by the Director of Youth Protection. According to the applicant, Z has been victim of domestic violence on part of Mr. B. [ 14 ] Z testified in front of the Court to state that she is willing and able to care for Y and that the last weeks with him went fine. Moreover, she is not living with her boyfriend and agrees not to live with him unless he is approved as a caregiver by the Youth Protection services.

The evidence also shows that Y has a good bond with his sister and misses his mother. Furthermore, in the past Y has always been able to seek help when things were difficult at home. [ 15 ] Albeit, the conjugal situation of the older sister isn't perfect, but it offers more stability than not knowing where Y is going to be, not to mention the insecurity the youth would be bound to incur. With a close follow-up and the collaboration of the sister, the Court believes that the entrustment of Y to his sister for a short period is in his best interest and in keeping with

section 4 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 16 ] As for X, the Court is convinced that the evidence supports a foster care measure for a period of three months and five days. [ 17 ] The next months will be determinative in order to confirm the sister's capability to provide a stable environment for Y on the mid to long-term.

It will also allow the Court to find out if the mother's attitude towards the proposed help remains the same, in which case measures to ensure the long-term stability of both children will have to be addressed. [ 18 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS partially the petitions; [ 20 ] REVISES the decision rendered on November 15, 2011, concerning both children; [ 21 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […] , 2006 and Y February 26, 1998 remain endangered; Y's situation [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS Y to his older sister Z for a period of three months and five days; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the sister Z, the youth and the mother; [ 24 ] ALLOWS the D.Y.P. to make surprised visits at the sister's dwelling; [ 25 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to evaluate Z's boyfriend B as a possible caregiver for Y; [ 26 ] FORBIDS , unless the D.Y.P. authorizes it, the presence of the boyfriend B at Z's dwelling; [ 27 ] ORDERS Z and the mother A no to be intoxicated in the presence of Y; [ 28 ] ORDERS all the measures for a period of three months and five days; [ 29 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court.

X's situation [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of three months and five days; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be under the supervision of the D.Y.P. as to the frequency and

modalities; [ 33 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the D.Y.P. regarding her personal situation and to report regularly to the D.Y.P.; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the mother for a period of three months and five days; [ 35 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother receives a full psychological evaluation and that she follows the advice of the said professional; [ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Myriame Gaudreault Legal Aid A Lawyer for the youth M e Marie-Claude DeGagné Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: June 12, 2012