2015 QCCQ 19543, 2015 QCCQ 19543

Protection de la jeunesse — 154754 2015 QCCQ 19543 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41- 030072-151 DATE : December 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on […], 2015 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on December 3rd, 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of the situation of the baby alleging that his security and development are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment as well as risk of negligence.

The Director is asking that the child be entrusted to a foster family and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] When the Director initially seized court, the paternal filiation had been established as it appeared from the birth certificate of the child. [ 4 ] On September 17 th , 2015, at the first hearing, the person whose name appeared on the birth certificate came forward requesting that his name be removed from the birth certificate. Mr.

A expressed himself very clearly: he doubts that he is the biological father of the child, he is not married to the mother and never signed the registration form of the child (the mother did) and he has no intention to care for the child. [ 5 ] The mother of the child never appeared before the Court nor on the 17 th of September nor on the continuation of the hearing held on December 3 rd . Her position in regards to the recommendations made by the Director is unknown.

[ 6 ] At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the child agrees with the final recommendations made by the Director. Along the Court process, counsel for the child was always in agreement with the interim measures requested by the Director. CONTEXT [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the child is born prematurely, after 27 weeks of gestation. At birth, the child is admitted to the NICU at the Montreal Children's Hospital.

Several complications associated with prematurity includes respiratory distress, episodes of bacteremia and sepsis and several blood product transfusions due to anemia or low platelet numbers. [ 8 ] On July 28 th , 2015, approximately six weeks after the birth of the child, his situation is signalled to the Director.

The infant is then kept in an incubator at the hospital and concerns of neglect due to the mother's drug use and to the father's criminal history are raised. [ 9 ] The child was born prematurely and had a low birth weight due to the mother's drug (crack-cocaine and marijuana) and alcohol use during pregnancy.

When she gave birth to the child, the mother was under the influence of crack-cocaine. [ 10 ] Despite several attempts made to reach the mother (messages left, registered letters sent, unannounced visits made at the mother's home), the mother has failed to respond to the Youth Protection worker. [ 11 ] Neither the mother nor the man who was first listed as the child's father made themselves available to be involved in the care of the child. [ 12 ] Prior to the situation of the child being signalled to the Director, it is unclear how often the mother visited the child at the hospital as the information was not noted in the child's file.

Following July 27 th , 2015, the mother has visited her son only on one occasion. [ 13 ] When the child was two-month-old, entrusted to the Montreal Children's Hospital under provisional measures, the child was desperately seeking for human contact. When awake, the child was alert and looking around the room. He would maintain eye contact with whoever was near him. He could respond positively to human touch. When alone, the child would often be fussy.

On the contrary, when a nurse or volunteer would touch or hold him, he would immediately calm down. [ 14 ] The medical team came to the conclusion that the child was not progressing as quickly as expected because he did not have caregivers constantly at his bedside.

His limited contacts with caregivers were believed to hinder his overall medical progress and attachment needs. [ 15 ] On September 17 th , 2015, the Court preferred to render an interim decision allowing for the child to be entrusted to a hospital centre urging the Director to identify foster parents who would accept to be involved as primary caregivers for the child during his hospitalization and to identify one specific person who would accept the responsibility to become aware of the complex medical condition of the child and make decisions regarding his health if and when need be. [ 16 ] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Director informs the Court that on September 21 st , 2015, a foster family agreed to care for the child.

Ever since, the foster parents visit the child everyday at the hospital. They are committed to caring for him on a long-term basis. They are involved with the medical team and have learned to provide care for the child.

They have filled the child's room with toys, books, blankets and a musical mobile. [ 17 ] Currently, the medical issues are listed as follows: ▪ As the child has chronic lung disease, he needs numerous oxygen supply and will need to go home on oxygen and saturation monitoring; ▪ As the child has feeding difficulties and gastroesophageal reflux, he his currently fed by nasogastric tube. ▪ As the child has left occipital arterio-venous vascular malformations, he will have to be followed by the Neurosurgery Clinic as an out- patient; ▪ The child will require a follow-up in ophthalmology; ▪ When discharged from hospital, a complex medical follow-up will have to be provided to the child in cardiology, respirology, neurosurgery and ophthalmology.

The child will benefit from complex care services, neonatal developmental follow-up, nutrition and occupational therapy. [ 18 ] As soon as the child is discharged from hospital (hopefully before Christmas), the foster parents will bring the child home and continue to care for him. [ 19 ] Since September 2015, others have also provided for the child. [ 20 ] Special arrangements were made at the hospital to provide continuity of care by nurses and volunteers.

In addition, [the youth and family center] volunteers have spent time with the child in support of the foster parents. [ 21 ] The Director has taken steps to register the child's birth with the Director of Civil Status. [ 22 ] Efforts have been made by the worker as well as hospital staff to try and reach out to the mother, but to no avail. Verifications were made with the MESS (Ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale ) as well as with a private investigation firm in order to locate the mother. Again, no information was found.

[ 23 ] Under the circumstances, it appears clearly that not only is the child at risk of negligence but the child has been neglected and abandoned by his only parent, the mother. The measures recommended by the Director are in the best interest of the child and meet his needs.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, TAKES NOTE that the child is still residing at the Montreal Children's Hospital and will be discharged shortly and TAKES NOTE of the choice of the Director for Mr. B and Mr.

C to be the foster parents; [ 26 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of all attributes of parental authority and GRANTS the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A the exercise of all attributes of parental authority; [ 27 ] TAKES NOTE of the fact that, currently, it is the Director of Youth Protection herself who is taking full responsibility for the medical consents to be provided for the child; [ 28 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the child and the mother until the mother has met with the delegate at least three (3) times; the Director of Youth Protection will then determine the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and the mother, taking into account the best interest of the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her mother, should she manifest herself; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE , until September 17, 2016; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michelle Robidoux Attorney for the child Date of hearing : September 17 th and December 3rd, 2015