2012 QCCQ 19879, 2012 QCCQ 19879

Protection de la jeunesse — 128914 2012 QCCQ 19879 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001483-129 DATE: November 23, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the […]., working in […] Applicant and X (…), born on […], 2010 Child and A (…) Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant in this case is presenting a motion for protection, asking that the security and development of X be declared endangered and that, as a measure, the Court order the child’s placement until majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, both parents are present and represented by counsel. [ 3 ] A preliminary application is submitted to the Court so that a third party, Mr.

C, be declared an interested party, in conformity with

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act [1] on the grounds that he would be the child’s biological father. [ 4 ] In order to establish the fact, the mother was called upon to testify, but she could not say any more than she was unsure of who is X’s true father. [ 5 ] The evidence being far from conclusive, the Court did not allow Mr. C to take

part in the discussions. [ 6 ] As to the position upheld by each of the parties, it appears that the mother, although she admits the endangered situation, disagrees with the conclusion sought, that is, the placement till majority, while the father expresses his agreement. [ 7 ] From the evidence heard and the documents filed, the Court essentially notes the following. [ 8 ] The child X was born prematurely on […], 2010 and, for that reason, needed intensive medical care. [ 9 ] Now, although his condition has generally improved, the child still remains vulnerable in certain respects.

Then, to ensure the continuous and positive evolution of his condition, some diligence is required. [ 10 ] In the first few months of his life, the father was the main care giver for the child, that is, until he was arrested for domestic violence in November 2010. [ 11 ] Thereafter, the mother took over, but already in December it turned out that she was overwhelmed with the situation and not in a state to provide care for her son. It then happened that she behaved inappropriately with him at times. [ 12 ] Indeed, the mother was particularly nonchalant about the medical care her son needed.

She missed several appointments and, by the end of January 2011, the child’s condition had deteriorated to the extent that he had to be hospitalized. [ 13 ] At the same period, as part of voluntary measures, the child was placed with his maternal aunt, Ms. D, with whom he still is.

[ 14 ] In the meantime, the mother was quite ambivalent in her relation with him, saying, in May 2011, that she was unsure about wanting to have her son back then. [ 15 ] Steps were taken anyhow in an attempt at reintegration, but with mitigated outcomes. [ 16 ] On some occasions, the mother went to see her child on the scheduled visits, but at other times she would ignore or forget them. [ 17 ] Concerning the collaboration with the social Services that was asked of her, the results are not conclusive. There were many appointments she did not attend without any serious reasons.

She does not seem to consider them useful and worth getting involved in. [ 18 ] In other respects, the evidence reveals that the mother displayed some drinking problems, but that she has somewhat improved in this regard. She states that she is presently sober. [ 19 ] The evidence also reveals that Ms.A, who is now living at her in-law’s mother’s place, would not be in a material position now to take on responsibility for her child.

The house seems to be overcrowded, with over twenty people residing there, and the sanitary conditions could be harmful to the young boy’s health. [ 20 ] Then, considering that the mother’s circumstances have not improved enough, the applicant submits that it is necessary to maintain the child in the current foster family. [ 21 ] As a matter of fact, the child, who has been fostered there for over a year and a half, as mentioned earlier, has completely adapted, is properly treated and has created bonds with the family. [ 22 ] Furthermore, his health condition has definitely improved. [ 23 ] Although [social worker] acknowledges the efforts made by the mother as well as the improvement she showed, he does not believe that she is able now or in the near future to assume responsibility for her son. [ 24 ] The mother’s testimony reveals her desire to have her child back and her intention to take the required steps to do so. [ 25 ] Indeed, she says that she intends to move out of the place where she is now staying; she is aware that overcrowding and the sanitary conditions there are not proper for X. [ 26 ] She would then go and live with her mother; the house seems more adequate although ten people already live there. [ 27 ] Concerning her lack of collaboration with the Social Services, she clearly does not see the use of such services.

Quite obviously there will be no cooperation from her in this regard. [ 28 ] Beyond planning to move, she does not mention any future plans for her son. [ 29 ] As to the applicant’s allegation regarding the lack of interest she would have shown in her son, she simply denies it. She explains missing or shortening some of the visits in the foster family by the bad relations she has with her aunt. [ 30 ] As mentioned earlier, the latter, A, has provided care for X for most of his life.

The child has in fact been entrusted to her when he was approximately six months old. [ 31 ] She is ready to continue as strong bonds have developed between them, and she provides adequately for him in all likelihood. [ 32 ] She is very well aware that she is not his mother although she treats him as her son. [ 33 ] The Court believes that, in the best interest of the young boy, it must be kept this way as long as neither parent is unable to provide him with a stable, adequate and secure environment. [ 34 ] As mentioned above, while the father does agree with a long-term placement, the mother does not. [ 35 ] The Court, although acknowledging the improvement she seems to have made, believes that they are not sufficient to give the assurance that she will be able to adequately meet X’s particular needs. [ 36 ] In the circumstances and especially considering the long period of placement in the current foster family, returning the child to his parents, although desirable of course, must be carried out only if minimal conditions are met to ensure success. [ 37 ] The Court is not under the impression that it is the case now, considering that the mother is not yet able to provide adequate care for her son. [ 38 ] If she keeps improving, it is highly possible that this conclusion to be changed and that X be returned with her, but it is not desirable at the present time. [ 39 ] Let us be reminded that, at all times, it will be possible for her to ask for the review of this decision, if circumstances allow.

However, for the time being, it is in the child’s best interest to order his placement until majority. [ 40 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still endangered;

[ 43 ] ORDERS the placement of X in the foster family of Mrs.

D he reaches majority; [ 44 ] ORDERS that all the contacts between the child and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the terms and conditions; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the foster family, notably regarding health, school, travel, recreational and extracurricular activities; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, the foster family and the parents; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the child Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the mother Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 25, 2012