2013 QCCQ 8123, 2013 QCCQ 8123

Protection de la jeunesse — 131352 2013 QCCQ 8123 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] JN 0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION Nos: 525-41-021790-092 525-41-021791-090 DATE: January 11, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF THE CENTRE JEUNESSE A – INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE, Director and X (born on […], 2003) Y (born on […], 2005), Children and A, Mother and B, Father of Y ______________________________________________________________________ CORRECTION OF A JUDGMENT COMPRISING A CLERICAL ERROR (Article 475 C.C.P.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or of his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine [Sections 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A. ]. [ 1 ] On January 11, 2013, the Court rendered a judgment in this matter pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] On January 28, 2013, the attorney for the Director of Youth Protection pointed out a clerical error in paragraph [181] of the Court's written judgment filed on January 11, 2013. [ 3 ] As a result, it is necessary to correct the written judgment to make it comply with the term of the Court order. [ 4 ] Considering the foregoing; [ 5 ] Considering

Article 475 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; [ 6 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT HEREBY: [ 7 ] CORRECTS as follows the judgment filed on January 11, 2013 by amending paragraph [181] as follows: [181] ALL OF THESE measures will be in force until X reaches the age of majority, namely May 28, 2021, and until Y reaches the age of majority, namely June 16, 2023 .

[ 8 ] ORDERS the translation of this judgment into the French language. Signed and filed on February 1, 2013 _______________________________________ JACQUES A. NADEAU, J.C.Q. Mtre Sandra Gill AN4120 Attorney for the Director Mtre Michel Ferland AF3204 Attorney for the children Mtre Jack Hendler AH1651 Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: December 22 nd , 2011, as well as November 22 nd and 23 rd , 2012 JAN/mcl Protection de la jeunesse — 131352 2013 QCCQ 8123 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] JN 0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION Nos: 525-41-021790-092 525-41-021791-090 DATE: January 11, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF THE CENTRE JEUNESSE A – INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE, Director and X (born on [...], 2003) Y (born on [...], 2005), Children and A, Mother and B, Father of Y ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION (SUBSECTION 95 (2) OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or of his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine [Sections 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A. ]. [1] 1. THE CONTEXT [2] The Court is seized of two

(2) Amended Motions for Extension filed on September 1, 2011 pursuant to Subparagraph 95 (2) of the Youth Protection Act , by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth protection of the Centre jeunesse A – Institut universitaire (hereafter, «the Director ») to have the order rendered by the undersigned on September 16, 2010 extended. [3] It should be noted that this judgment was first appealed before Superior Court which dismissed the Motion to extend the delays as well as the appeal on January 27, 2011. [4] On April 4, 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed a Motion for leave to appeal from this judgment. [5] The reasons invoked in support of the Motions for Extension can be summarized as follows. [6] Despite the ruling of the Court of Appeal referred to above, the mother still denies the facts which led the Court to conclude that the security and development of the children are in danger. [7] In addition, on September 20, 2010 the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rendered a decision in which it concluded that both the mother and X had not established their identity and were neither Convention refugees nor Persons in need of protection , thereby rejecting their claim of asylum under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . [8] Despite the mother having been in Canada for over five (5) years at the time of this ruling, she was unable to provide reliable identity documents for both X and herself.

The Refugee Protection Division even expressed that it had serious doubts that the mother was indeed X's mother. [ 9 ] As a result of this ruling, X and his mother are subject to an order of expulsion from Canada. [ 10 ] It should be added that the Director has taken steps to have a claim for resident status made on behalf of X on humanitarian grounds. [ 11 ] Both children have continued to evolve well in the foster home and all of their needs are cared for by Mrs.

C. [ 12 ] Y does not suffer from any particular difficulties but does require constant supervision. [ 13 ] As for X, he suffers from dysphasia and needs to attend a specialized school for children with speech problems.

[ 14 ] Despite having participated in some parenting skills workshops, it appears that when the mother has contacts with the children, she is not able to apply what she has learned and relies on the support of the social workers to apply the rules to be followed. [ 15 ] The mother's collaboration has left to be desired and her personal life remains shrouded in mystery. [ 16 ] Whereas the foster mother has expressed the desire that the children be entrusted to her until they reach the age of majority, the mother wants the children to be returned to her and does not see any negative implications for them in this regard. [ 17 ] The Court wishes to point out that over the fifteen-month period required to complete the hearing of the Motions for Extension , there were a substantial number of postponements which were granted for a number of reasons.

The evidence was submitted at hearings held on December 22, 2011 and November 22, 2012.

Oral arguments were heard on November 23, 2012. [ 18 ] As a principal measure, the Director recommends that X and Y's entrustment to a foster home be maintained until they reach the age of majority. [ 19 ] The mother is represented by a new attorney who makes a number of admissions while contesting the Director's recommendations and requesting the return of the children to the care of is client. [ 20 ] As for the children, their attorney informs the Court that they wish to remain in their foster home where they feel comfortable. [ 21 ] 2.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE [ 22 ] 2.1 The Director's evidence [ 23 ] In support of the Motions for Extension , the Director filed a number of documents and reports (D-1 to D-14 in the case of X and D-1 to D-11 in the case of Y). [ 24 ] 2.1.1 Testimony of C [ 25 ] Mrs. C has been acting as foster mother for forty (40) years and has been taking care of X since January of 2009 and of Y since the Spring of 2009. [ 26 ] She reports that X has been doing well and is improving day by day despite his speech problems (dysphasia) which requires his attending a specialized school and receiving speech therapy. Mrs.

C makes him repeat words he has problems with at home. [ 27 ] He takes medication for his epilepsy in the morning and at night and is seen for this condition at the A Hospital about every six (6) months. [ 28 ] X also participates in circus activities every Saturday morning. [ 29 ] Mrs. C states that X is very close and affectionate with her. [ 30 ] As for Y, he is doing extremely well in school although he is somewhat more agitated then X. He also engages in circus activities on Saturday mornings. [ 31 ] The foster mother also reports that she has a very warm relationship with Y. [ 32 ] Although Mrs.

C expresses the desire for the children to be placed in her home until they reach the age of majority, she is comfortable with X and Y having contacts with the mother. X occasionally complains about there being too many contacts with the mother. [ 33 ] Mrs. C has not spoken to the children of the Director's request to have them placed until they reach the age of majority, as she does not want to put them in a position of conflict of interest with the mother. [ 34 ] The foster mother asserts that she gets along well with the mother who provides most of the children's clothes.

The mother also accompanies her and X to the child's appointments at the A Hospital. [ 35 ] Three (3) other boys aged fifteen (15), fourteen (14) and fourteen (14) also live in her home, two (2) having been placed until they reach the age of majority and she having been appointed the tutor of the other. [ 36 ] The most significant changes she has observed in the boys are that X is less aggressive and that Y is more resourceful (« débrouillard »). [ 37 ] At the beginning of his placement, X spoke a lot to her about the physical abuse he suffered which explained his aggressive behaviour. [ 38 ] Mrs.

C informs the Court that the children go to her daughter's home one weekend every moth as well as three (3) weeks over a two (2) month period in the Summer. Her daughter has been certified as a foster home for two (2) years and will be willing to replace her should she not be able to assume the care of the children until they reach the age of majority. [ 39 ] The foster mother does not speak English and speaks to the children in French. They also listen to the television in French. [ 40 ] 2.1.2 Testimony of [Social Worker 1] [ 41 ] 2.1.2.1 December 22, 2011

[ 42 ] She has been the social worker assigned to the file since June of 2011 and drafted the Court reports filed under Exhibits D-5, D- 11 and D-12 in the case of X, and D-4, D-8 and D-9 in the case of Y. [ 43 ] On average, she sees the mother once a month and speaks to her over the phone once every three (3) weeks.

They discuss the organization of contacts with the children, their medical appointments, any specific requests of the mother, the steps the mother has taken regarding her personal issues and X's immigration status. [ 44 ] According to Mrs. [Social Worker 1], the mother minimizes the events and is convinced that X alleged he was physically abused under pressure from adults.

In addition, the mother does not recognize having been neglectful towards the children. [ 45 ] Despite having attended certain workshops to improve her parenting skills, the mother experiences difficulties in supervising and adopting a consistent approach regarding the children's behaviours. [ 46 ] Moreover, the mother expresses herself mostly in English during contacts with the children and relies on the people who supervise these contacts to translate for her. [ 47 ] The children are both schooled in French and it is important for X to deal with only one language given his speech problems.

The mother does not understand the explanations given to her regarding X's condition. [ 48 ] The social worker reports that both children have become attached to Mrs. C, are happy with her and want to remain in her home. X and Y agree to continue seeing the mother but do not wish to live with her.

The Director is asking for the children to be placed until they reach the age of majority to ensure their stability and safety. [ 49 ] Although the mother's cooperation has greatly improved since Mrs. [Social Worker 1] became involved in these matters, she still needs to work on her parenting capacities and sensitivity to better control the children during her contacts with them. [ 50 ] According to the social worker, the mother must also recognize the grounds on which the Court ruled that the children's security and development were in danger. [ 51 ] On cross-examination, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] explains that these matters were referred to the Centre jeunesse A because this Centre deals with francophones and allophones and the mother's mother tongue is not English. [ 52 ] The social worker confirms that the mother does not pay her parental contribution for the placement of the children although she wants them to attend a French private school and pays for their clothing. [ 53 ] With respect to the contacts with the mother, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] testifies that X does not want to be alone in the presence of his mother and wishes that these contacts take place in a public place and not at the mother's home. [ 54 ] X does not always want to go to see the mother but once he arrives for the contact, he is all right.

Y enjoys the visits with the mother. The children speak French.

X understands a few words of English but not Y. [ 55 ] The mother wishes for the children to be entrusted back to her but has not provided details of her plan for them given her precarious immigration status. [ 56 ] Other than the father's attorney's letter of October 4, 2011 filed as Exhibit D-8 in X's file and D-6 in Y's file, the social worker has not had any contact with any member of the extended family of the mother in Texas or Boston. [ 57 ] Although the possibility of a DNA sample being submitted by the mother to resolve the identification issue of X was discussed, she never followed through with it. [ 58 ] 2.1.2.2 November 22, 2012 [ 59 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] testifies regarding the various appointments scheduled for the mother with psychologist D.

In particular, she confirms having informed the mother of a follow-up appointment scheduled for October 23, 2012. This appointment did not take place as the mother denied having been so informed. [ 60 ] The social worker adds that she sought the mother's authorization to have an immigration agent contact her but has not received any calls in this regard. [ 61 ] It appears that the mother has recently been less participative in attending medical appointments and school meetings for the children. [ 62 ] The mother was late in taking steps for the children's last dental appointment and Mrs.

C ended up taking them to the dentist. [ 63 ] The mother has taken the children and Mrs. C to shows on a number of occasions. [ 64 ] The modalities of contacts have recently been changed at the children's request so that one week, the mother sees both children and the following week, she sees only one of the children in alternate fashion.

X has recently refused to attend these visits on a number of occasions. [ 65 ] There are several telephone contacts between the social worker and the mother although the latter is not easy to reach since she does not answer her cell phone and does not have voice mail. [ 66 ] 2.1.3 Testimony of psychologist D

[ 67 ] Mrs. D Psychological Evaluation Report of the mother was filed as Exhibit D-14 in the case of X and D-11 in the case of Y. After hearing her testimony regarding her qualifications and experience, the Court declared Mrs. D an expert witness in the field of psychology. [ 68 ] Based on the data gathered from of the various tests she had the mother complete, the witness found the mother to be extremely distrustful and defensive. [ 69 ] Mrs. D would have wanted to meet the mother one more time because of her difficulty in gauging precisely what the mother was trying to convey.

She refers to the mother at times losing touch with reality and being in a state of disassociation. [ 70 ] Not being connected to her own emotions, the mother is not able to be conscious of what the children themselves are going through. [ 71 ] As a result, according to the witness, there are impacts on her parental capacities as she has difficulties in establishing an emotional bond with the children. [ 72 ] Mrs. D concludes that the mother has important parental limitations and shows week capacities of introspection.

For example, the mother expressed to her that in her heart, she knows she will be reunited with the children. She has problems in evaluating the tangible aspects of reality. [ 73 ] Based on the profile of the mother and although she has not evaluated the children, the witness believes that returning the children to the mother raises important risk factors. [ 74 ] She observed an attitude of faking good (« bien paraître» ) on the part of the mother. [ 75 ] Mrs.

D adds that from the data collected by the mother's psychologist, doctor Hubert Van Gijseghem, she noted insensitivity, a lack of empathy and bizarre schemes of thought of the mother. [ 76 ] 2.2 Evidence of the mother [ 77 ] 2.2.1 Testimony of Doctor Hubert Van Gijseghem, psychologist [ 78 ] Doctor Van Gijseghem's Psycholegal Expertise Report of the mother was filed as Exhibit M-1 in both files.

The Court declared Doctor Van Gijseghem an expert witness in the field of psychology. [ 79 ] The witness notes the tenuous relationship between the mother and the children and he hypothesizes that the children's new environment is totally unaccessible to the mother in terms of communication. He believes that placing the children in a different world with a different culture could only fatally affect the relationship with the mother.

He notes the difficulties experienced by the mother in adapting to her new cultural environment. [ 80 ] Doctor Van Gijseghem did not have access to the Court's judgment of September 16, 2010 but was referred to and spoke with Reverend George Lagodesh who testified on the mother's behalf at the hearing of the Motion for Protection . [ 81 ] It was also established that he was not made aware of the Refugee Protection Division's ruling of September 20, 2010 (D-1) or of Psychologist E'[s] evaluation of X (D-4).

He also did not consult the medical files of the children which he considers to be secondary documents. [ 82 ] The test results indicate that the mother exercises great control over her emotions. However, nothing indicates the presence of a psychopathology. [ 83 ] The mother was very defensive in one of the tests and trying to show herself in her best light (« faking good »). Obsessional traits were noted. [ 84 ] A weak capacity of introspection was also observed.

According to the witness, the mother could improve in this regard as she is visibly intelligent and very educated. [ 85 ] Although he did not broach the issue of her mastery of the French language with the mother, he considers that she has the capacity to learn a language. [ 86 ] Doctor Van Gijseghem was not able to establish the structure of the mother's personality due to her faking good .

However, he does not believe that there is any psychological pathology interfering with her parental capacities. [ 87 ] 2.2.2 Testimony of the mother [ 88 ] The mother denies that Mrs. [Social Worker 1] confirmed with her the October 23 rd meeting with psychologist D. She also claims not having been late for medical appointments and having offered the services of a private dentist. [ 89 ] As for her psychological evaluation by Mrs. D, she finds no logic to her report and asserts that the latter does not speak English well and that the interpreter also had problems speaking English.

According to the mother, it was very difficult for Mrs. D to understand her. [ 90 ] For the mother, the education of the children is their ticket to the future and her husband is saving money to send them to university. She believes that if they remain with Mrs. C, they will not go to university. [ 91 ] She finds that the children do not look happy with the foster mother, are too skinny and are not clean. She is not happy with

their education. [ 92 ] Her husband is the manager of a petroleum company, makes a good salary and his three (3) sisters and brother live in the United States. Although he sends her money sometimes, she is still on welfare. She speaks to him every day on the phone.

He cannot obtain a visa to come to Canada. [ 93 ] Cross-examined on her understanding of the judgment rendered by the Court regarding the Motion for Protection , the mother still claims that X was not physically abused at home but at a church event. [ 94 ] However, she does admit having been neglectful of the children's medical follow-ups in having missed a few appointments because she was in a detention centre. [ 95 ] She claims that the Director is trying to keep her and her children apart but recognizes she needs the Director's help to support her in reintegrating the children back into her home. [ 96 ] Despite X's difficulties in school and specialized needs, she believes that with the help of private teachers at home, he can succeed. [ 97 ] She claims that the distance being created between her and the children is due to the fact they are not used to seeing her.

With love and care, as well as with the support of a psychologist, they will adapt to her home. [ 98 ] Although she respects Mrs. C for taking care of the children and recognizes their attachment to her, she does not believe they will react adversely to leaving her. [ 99 ] The mother wants to remain in Canada subject to the immigration decision and she is still waiting for clarification of her status, claiming she cannot be deported.

X is still waiting a decision further to the application for permanent resident status made on his behalf on humanitarian grounds. [ 100 ] The mother claims she cannot go back to Nigeria because the situation there is very close to civil war.

She also states that since January of 2012, she has been on good terms with her father and stepmother and is now in touch with her daughter on the Internet. [ 101 ] The mother claims that all of her personal documents are in Syria and when confronted with doctor Van Gijseghem's Report (M- 1) which states that they remained in Moscow, she asserts that they were moved from Moscow to Syria. [ 102 ] As for the contacts between her and the children, she states that they are sometimes angry and have a closed attitude when they arrive.

She does her best to apply the notions she learned during the parenting workshops she participated in. [ 103 ] The mother still denies the findings of physical abuse made by the Court in its previous judgment. [ 104 ] With respect to the Refugee Protection Division 's finding that there are serious doubts as to her being the mother of X, she claims to have agreed to DNA testing but did not follow through with it. [ 105 ] 3.

THE ISSUES [ 106 ] Firstly, the Court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the security and development of the children are still in danger for reasons alleged by the Director. [ 107 ] If such is the case, the Court must then determine the appropriate measures which should be ordered in the circumstances. [ 108 ] 4.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE [ 109 ] 4.1 The burden of proof [ 110 ] In its previous judgment, the Court dealt with the issue of the burden of proof and concluded that the applicable standard in youth protection matters is that of the balance of probabilities. [ 111 ] 4.2 The immigration status of the mother and of X [ 112 ] As the Court stated in its previous judgment, it is not called upon to rule on the immigration issues involving the mother and X.

However, based on the Refugee Protection Division 's ruling (D-1), far from having cleared up her own as well as X's status, the mother appears to be on the verge of being expelled from Canada. [ 113 ] Even more disturbing are the serious doubts expressed as to her being the mother of X. The mother could have put these doubts to rest by undergoing DNA testing but has yet to do so. [ 114 ] As pointed out in the Refugee Protection Division' s ruling, the mother changes her testimony when faced with contradictions.

A good example is the location of her personal documents which she claims to be Syria after telling Doctor Van Gijseghem they were in Moscow. [ 115 ] She also informs the latter that when her father learned she had married a colored person who was a Christian, he declared her « dead » and this is why she did not have access to her personal documents in Moscow. During her testimony, she claims that she has since reconciled with her father and stepmother.

[ 116 ] The Court also notes that when Doctor Van Gijseghem sought documents from the mother to establish the refugee status she claimed to have, the latter sent documents which did not prove she had such status (see page 10 of Exhibit M-1). [ 117 ] Another element which has frequently been raised by the mother is the involvement of the father, Mr.

B, and his impending arrival in Canada which has failed to materialize. [ 118 ] The Court finds that the changes in her versions as well as her unsubstantiated claims affect the credibility of the mother's testimony. [ 119 ] Despite the strong recommendation made by the Court in September of 2010, the mother has failed to clarified her status with the immigration authorities. [ 120 ] The Court can only hope that the application for permanent resident status made on behalf of X on humanitarian grounds will be granted so that he is not separated from his brother Y. [ 121 ] 4.3 Lack of recognition of the situation of endangerment [ 122 ] Clearly, the mother still does not agree with the Court's findings in the judgment of September 16, 2010.

Given the ensuing Superior Court and Court of Appeal decisions, the mother must understand that these findings stand and that the Motions for Extension involve an appreciation of the facts which have occurred since September of 2010 and not since the beginning of 2009. [ 123 ] The Court believes that no significant progress can be made by the mother until she acknowledges the facts that brought about the Director's intervention. [ 124 ] This being said, such a recognition may prove to be difficult in light of the findings made as a result of the psychological evaluations conducted with the mother. [ 125 ] 4.4 Psychological evaluations of the mother [ 126 ] The Court first notes that Doctor Van Gijseghem had much more limited access to the relevant documentary evidence than Mrs.

D and his opinion thus has to be evaluated in light of the fact that the only material document he was provided with was Mrs. [Social Worker 1]'s Court Report of September 6, 2011 (D-5 in the case of X and D-4 in the case of Y). [ 127 ] The fact that he was not made aware of the previous Court decisions concerning the children and that the mother referred him to Reverend Lagodesh to refute the allegations of physical abuse is another demonstration of the mother's refusal to recognize the situation of endangerment declared by the Court. [ 128 ] Doctor Van Gijseghem concludes as follows at page 12 of his Report : It is obviously impossible for us to express ourselves on the occurrence of this abuse or to rather give credibility to the mother's version even if Mr.

George Lagodesh's testimony seems to give it some weight. (our translation) [ 129 ] As a result, the Court finds that Doctor Van Gijseghem's evaluation was flawed by his not being informed of the Court's judgment of September 16, 2010 or the Refugee Protection Division 's decision of September 20, 2010. [ 130 ] As both the Director's attorney and the attorney for the children pointed out to the Court, the findings of both psychologists are consistent regarding the mother's defensive and faking good attitude, as well as with respect to her lack of introspection.

The also both noted that the mother is not connected to her emotions and has obsessional traits. They concur regarding the immaturity and insecurity of the mother. [ 131 ] Based on the evaluation of their respective reports and testimonies, the Court finds that there is greater probative value to the conclusions of Mrs. D with respect to limitations to the mother's parental sensitivity as well as to her capacity to respond appropriately to the children's needs. The Court also agrees with Mrs.

D's conclusion that the mother's difficulty to structure her thoughts to take into account objective reality also results in the problems she encounters in implementing appropriate limits and structure for the children. [ 132 ] The best illustration of this is the mother's belief that despite all of his problems and needs, X can attend a private school, receive private tutoring at home and eventually obtain a university education.

This kind of thinking seriously underestimates the extent of X's problems and needs. [ 133 ] 4.5 Evaluation of the situation of the children [ 134 ] On all accounts, the situation of Y has evolved well since the last Court order, both at school and in the foster home. [ 135 ] The situation of X is more complex.

Although he too has evolved well, there are major issues regarding his development which are dealt with in the Speech Therapy Evaluation Report of March 8, 2011 filed as Exhibit D-3 as well as in the Psychological Evaluation Report filed as Exhibit D-4. [ 136 ] X suffers from a severe mixed speech problem which requires his being schooled in a speech therapy program.

Psychologist E states that it is important that the child live in an environment in which the spoken language is French. [ 137 ] In addition, X takes anticonvulsive medication twice a day for his epilepsy. [ 138 ] X and Y get along well and it is imperative that they remain together.

[ 139 ] 4.6 Contacts with the mother [ 140 ] The language barrier presents a problem during contacts between the children and the mother as she understands French but cannot speak it. [ 141 ] X is more distant with his mother and is exhibiting more and more reluctance to attending to these visits. [ 142 ] Y is happy to see his mother and enjoys these contacts. However, there are no spontaneous shows of affection on either part. [ 143 ] The observations made during these contacts reveal that the mother is not always able to control X and Y and is not consistent with her requests.

She does not always select appropriate activities for them, spoils them and makes sure they eat a lot. [ 144 ] It is also noted that the major difficulty observed with the mother is listening to the children. Indeed, she shows no interest in being informed of how they are doing and is focused on the meals and the activities which are planned for the contacts.

She emphasizes the quantity of what she offers to the children rather than the quality of her exchanges with them. [ 145 ] In recent months, the poor quality of the contacts between the mother and the children has led to a reduction in their frequency and a change of modalities. As meals and gifts have become a distraction, the focus has been placed on activities. The children also have the opportunity to meet the mother individually. [ 146 ] To her credit, the mother has taken the initiative of inviting Mrs.

C along with the children to shows on two (2) occasions and has treated her respectfully. [ 147 ] 4.7 Are the security and development of the children still in danger? [ 148 ] The Court finds that there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the Director's position in this regard. [ 149 ] Indeed, the precarious status of the mother and of X with the Canadian immigration authorities, the mother's refusal to acknowledge the Court's previous judgment, as well as the limitations relating to her parental capacities which were identified in her psychological evaluations, put the children's security and development at considerable risk. [ 150 ] The mother believes that the children returning to her home after close to four (4) year in foster care would not present any problems despite the fact that the children have clearly expressed their wish to remain with the foster mother, Mrs.

C. With all due respect, this is another example of wishful thinking on the mother's part. [ 151 ] 4.8 The appropriate environment for the children [ 152 ] Y was placed in a foster home on January 27, 2009 and X on February 2, 2009. [ 153 ] They have thus spent a significant portion of their lifetime in the home of Mrs. C (more than half of his life in the case of Y). [ 154 ] One must understand that the notion of time in the life of a child is much more significant than in the life of an adult. [ 155 ] X and Y have expressed that they are well and enjoy living with Mrs.

C who is committed to responding to their needs until they reach the age of majority. The evidence reveals that they are developing well in this home and are attached to their foster mother. [ 156 ] The Court recognizes that the mother loves the children and wants only the best for them but the evidence reveals that she is not able to evaluate their specific needs and cater to them. The Court is also concerned by the constant contradictions and uncertain status which underlie the mother's personal situation. [ 157 ] As a result, the Court finds that the children should be maintained in the foster home of Mrs.

C. [ 158 ] 4.9 The length of the order [ 159 ]

Section 3 of the Youth Protection Act states that decisions made under the Act must be in the interest of the child and respect his rights. [ 160 ] The maximum delays for placement set out under

Section 91.1 of the Act have well been exceeded and as a result, the Court must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the children's needs and age on a permanent basis (Paragraph 3 of

Section 91.1). [ 161 ] The evidence reveals that the placement of the children in the foster home of Mrs. C is a suitable permanent life plan for them and the Court thus orders that they be placed there until they reach the age of majority. [ 162 ] 5.

CONCLUSIONS [ 163 ] After having received the admissions, and taken into consideration the testimonies heard and the various documents filed in the Court record, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence reveals that the security and development of the children are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act . [ 164 ] The Court is also of the opinion that the measures proposed by the Director are in the interest of the children. [ 165 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 166 ] GRANTS the Motions for Extension ;

[ 167 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children, X and Y, are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act ; [ 168 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT: [ 169 ] ORDERS that the entrustment of the children to a foster family be maintained; [ 170 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that this family is that of Mrs.

C; [ 171 ] ORDERS that the children receive the health care and services required by their state of health; [ 172 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the mother and the children be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including a degree of supervision, if deemed necessary, and taking into account the wishes and interest expressed by the children; [ 173 ] MAINTAINS the prohibition of contact in force between the children and Mr.

Saliba Saliba; [ 174 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign any document concerning the children (relating to health, school, recreation activities, trips, etc.) in the event it is impossible to reach the mother within a reasonable delay or if the mother refuses to provide such a document without a valid reason; [ 175 ] ORDERS that the mother and the children participate actively in the measures ordered by the Court; [ 176 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 177 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A – Institut universitaire for the purposes of executing these measures; [ 178 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgment by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 179 ] ORDERS that a copy of this judgment be served by bailiff to the mother; [ 180 ] ORDERS that this judgment be translated in the French language; [ 181 ] ALL OF THESE measures will be in force until X reaches the age of majority, namely [...], 2021, and until Y reaches the age of majority, namely [...], 2013.

Signed and filed on January 11, 2013 _______________________________________ JACQUES A. NADEAU, J.C.Q. Mtre Sandra Gill AN4120 Attorney for the Director Mtre Michel Ferland AF3204 Attorney for the children Mtre Jack Hendler AH1651 Attorney for the mother

Hearing dates: December 22 nd , 2011, as well as November 22 nd and 23 rd , 2012 JAN/mcl