2022 QCCQ 14415, 2022 QCCQ 14415

Protection de la jeunesse — 229073 2022 QCCQ 14415 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002766-225 DATE: June 7, 2022 (written judgment rendered on June 23, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and B Mother and C Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) i and (

c) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the children to a kinship foster family until June 7, 2023. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She denies that the security and development of her child would be endangered and if the Court concludes that there is such situation, she asks for her child to be back under her care. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is 8 ½ years old. She is absent, but represented by Me MichaëlPereira.

She recognizes that her security and development are endangered and she agrees with the measures. She clearly mentions that she does not want to be back under her mother’s care. [ 6 ] The child has siblings, Y (2), Z (10) and A (16 ¾). The Court is also seized with their situation. Facts [ 7 ] The DYP started to intervene in this family following the intervention of the Social Services due to the mother’s mental health issues, and to provide her with emergency groceries. [ 8 ] Each time the DYP came at the mother’s place, the house was messy and dirty and numerous signs of neglect were noted.

The DYP worker was not able to have a conversation with the mother. She was mumbling unclear words while rocking forward and backward. [ 9 ] The children were taken care by A, the oldest one. He admitted to the DYP worker being tired of taking care of his siblings and to make sure that everything is OK for them. [ 10 ] In January, the mother had to be medevaced to the hospital of Town A for her mental issues. [ 11 ] At that moment, the Court entrusted the children to their maternal and paternal grandparents. [ 12 ] Since she is back in her community, she attended only one meeting with the mental health nurse.

The DYP has no access to the

medical file of the mother, so her exact medical situation is unknown as well as the plan of treatment. [ 13 ] By the end of February, the mother showed more stability for 2 weeks. The DYP worker was looking to meet with her to see if and how a reintegration of the children could be possible. [ 14 ] Unfortunately, the situation of the mother degenerated again quickly and since the beginning of March 2022, the mother refuses to speak with the DYP worker. [ 15 ] It is known that the mother would exercise contacts with her children without authorization from the DYP.

Nothing wrong had been reported. [ 16 ] The DYP would be open for extended contacts between the mother and the children as long as the medical situation of the mother could be assessed and that the children go back sleeping at their grandparents at night. For now, due to the refusal of the mother to collaborate, no plan was put in place and the situation remains very nebulous. [ 17 ] The 3 youngest children are with the paternal grandparents, and they are doing well.

For Z and X their school attendance greatly improved since they are entrusted. [ 18 ] A would like to be free to go to his maternal grandparents as well at his paternal grandparents. The DYP is in agreement with this plan considering his age and maturity. [ 19 ] The mother admits her hospitalization at the end of January, but denies that she had suicidal ideation at that time. She is convinced that the DYP and the Social Services lie about that.

She repeated during her testimony that she did nothing wrong and that the presence of the DYP is not required. [ 20 ] She confirms at the Court that she will not collaborate with the DYP because she does not speak with liars. [ 21 ] She also confirms that sometimes she continues to hear some voices and that the doctor prescribed some pills, but she will not take it and she will not go to see the doctor again. [ 22 ] The DYP is preoccupied with the fact that X repeated many times that she does not want to go back living at her mother’s place.

She also said that to her lawyer. [ 23 ] The Court questioned the DYP worker about the reason, even if informed of the family situation in May 2021, no interventions were taken by the DYP before January 2022, when the crisis became very important. The DYP worker was not working there at that moment and ignores the reason. She supposed that it was due to a lack of resources. Analysis [ 24 ] The situation of the mother became very serious in January 2022, to the point that a hospitalization was needed.

While, the mother was not doing well, her children were put in danger and the oldest one, A had a lot of responsibility by ensuring the wellbeing of his siblings. [ 25 ] The situation of the mother continues to be very worrisome and due to his testimony, it is difficult to have hope for the next months. [ 26 ] Despite the fact that she heard the openness of the DYP worker to work for a reintegration process, the mother continues to refuse categorically to open up and to collaborate. [ 27 ] Luckily, the children are well taken care by their paternal and maternal grandparents and their stability has to be insured there.

They have strong bonds with them and as we can see with the school attendance, the placement is very positive for them. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) i and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a kinship foster family; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the modalities and frequency of the contacts between the parents and the child be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of the mother, as soon as the situation allows it; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 35 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection or any other person designated by the Court, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport;

[ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the present decision be executed by any peace officer if necessary; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother give access to the Director of Youth Protection to her mental health diagnosis, the treatments and medication; [ 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 June 30, 2023. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the children Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: June 7, 2022