2012 QCCQ 11728, 2012 QCCQ 11728

Protection de la jeunesse — 123858 2012 QCCQ 11728 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004183-128 DATE: May 9, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2001 DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B , deceased JC0B11 Parents of the child ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a Motion for protection concerning the child, X . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of negligence on an educational level, as more amply detailed in paragraph 3 of the motion.

As well as other measures of aid and assistance, the Petitioner recommends that the child be placed in foster care for a period of 5 months with access to the mother following mutual agreement. [ 3 ] The Petitioner produces the reports on the analysis of the child's social situation in lieu of testimony and this, by consent. The admissions of the parties as to the motion are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 4 ] From the parent's union were born three children, X being the youngest of the siblings.

She resides with her mother, her father having passed away in June 2008. Her two sisters have been in foster care for two years, due to serious behavioural difficulties. [ 5 ] The Director intervenes in the child's situation in November 2011. [ 6 ] The child has significant learning disabilities and is weak academically. [ 7 ] The child is chronically absent from school, having attended but a few days since the beginning of the school year in September 2012. The child refuses to attend school and resists her mother's authority.

A lack of boundaries and rules render the mother unable to respond adequately to her opposition, resulting in her successfully manipulating to her ends. [ 8 ] The child has lice since the beginning of the school year and the situation is not corrected and this, despite numerous interventions with the mother.

Her clothing is frequently weather-inappropriate and her attire and hygiene neglected. [ 9 ] The mother's cooperation is inconsistent and notwithstanding the insistence that the situation be corrected to avoid placement, unjustified absences continue. [ 10 ] On January 30 th 2012, a provisional agreement intervenes between the parties, entrusting the child to foster care. The lice problem is resolved and there is no recurrence of absenteeism. X 's functioning is positive in school and in the foster milieu. [ 11 ] From November 2009 to October 2010, the family received Youth Protection services for similar issues.

The intervention permitted the re-establishment of boundaries and the reduction of the child's anxiety and aggressive behaviours. [ 12 ] The intervention seeks the reintegration of the child in her maternal environment at the end of the measures. To ensure the success of this endeavour, the mother must demonstrate her ability to stabilize her personal situation and effectuate significant long-term changes in her abilities to establish and apply clear rules and boundaries for her child. [ 13 ] The family history denotes a chronic and insidious pattern of neglect and dysfunctional relationships.

The Court considers that the child's development cannot suffer any further instability and as such, the family environment requires close monitoring. The child's best interests dictate that any recurrence of neglect receive swift response and re-consideration the viability of her being maintained in her home environment. [ 14 ] In view of the admissions and the reports submitted in evidence, the Court is satisfied of the evidence and consequently: [ 15 ] The Court determines that the security and the development of the child are compromised in reason of neglect on an educational plan.

As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights, as well as the best interests, of the child. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be maintained in the foster family for a period of five (5) months; [ 20 ] TAKES ACT that the parties will proceed to the progressive reintegration of the child in her home, should the situation permit; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child and her mother undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development are in danger; [ 22 ] TAKES ACT that the mother will maintain her personal follow-up undertaken with the CLSC; [ 23 ] AUTORIZES the contacts between the child and her mother according to an agreement between the parties; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his parents for a period of one (1) year;

[ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: May 9, 2012