2016 QCCQ 17202, 2016 QCCQ 17202

Protection de la jeunesse — 168284 2016 QCCQ 17202 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 640-41-001921-151 DATE: December 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2015 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, District A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (par. 1) and 75 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of the Inuulitsivik C.Y.P.C. asks the Court to review the decision rendered on July 12, 2016 by the undersigned concerning the situation of X, 16 months old. [ 2 ] She asks for the child’s placement in a foster family until her majority. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are present, assisted by Me Angèle Tommasel and Me Marie-Claude De Gagné.

Me Joannie Jacob represents the child and Me Aubrée Coutanson, the applicant. [ 4 ] The father admits all the facts and the mother admits most of them. They disagree with the measures. They want the child to remain with the mother. [ 5 ] The evidence is completed with the testimonies of the social worker, the foster father and the mother. A revision report is filed. [ 6 ] It is proved that since June 2016, the child remained in the stable foster family of Mr C. The child is well adapted to this environment. Since September, she attends culturally adapted day care.

She received the medical follow-up needed. [ 7 ] The child is invested by the foster parents and well taken care of. The bond between them is strong. The foster parents took care of X when she was one month old, and later, she returned with them when she was five months old. [ 8 ] Before placing the child with the foster parents outside the community of A, the social worker look for members of the family. An attempt was made with an aunt, but she gave up quickly. The child was placed three times in a delay of one week of before returning with the foster family of Mr C.

This situation occurred when the situation of the child was judiciarised on provisional measures and following the first judgment rendered. Since, the child’s situation returned three times in Court, on January, June and November 2016. [ 9 ] Concerning the parents’ situation, the evidence reveals that the mother did not take any steps to attend treatment. She was incarcerated once since the last decision from April 14 to August 8, 2016. Since her release, the mother did not ask for contacts with her baby even if they were offered by the social worker.

Since her release, she made few positive changes in her life, but not sufficient. [ 10 ] The father did not collaborate with the social worker and has not requested contacts with his daughter. He does not show interest in the child. [ 11 ] The Director of Youth Protection was willing to organise visits with the child and her parents, but the parents did not ask for any. They were happy to see the child in the Court House, but they are not aware of the baby’s needs and her evolution.

[ 12 ] The parents were well informed in the previous judgment of what they need to change if they want to assume the child. They were informed of the legal delay (12 months of placement) imposed by the legislator in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence, the Court must insure the continuity of care, stable relationship and stable living conditions to the child. The parents did not convince the Court that there is possibility that the child could return to his parents in the short term.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster home of Mrs D and Mr C until her majority; [ 17 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents until the child’s majority; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to favour and to supervise the visit rights and access of the child with the parents (frequency and degree of supervision); [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 20 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate with the execution of the present judgment; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Me Marie-Claude De Gagné Attorney for the father Me Joannie Jacob Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 9, 2016