2020 QCCQ 12867, 2020 QCCQ 12867

Protection de la jeunesse — 209293 2020 QCCQ 12867 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000241-042 DATE: June 3, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , presently detained Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on June 26, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted him to Mr. C for a period of one year. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his parents and that the placement has to be prolonged until he reaches his majority.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] Even if she had been duly served, the mother is absent and not represented. The DYP worker was not able to reach her. Considering the consent of the parties and the best interest of the adolescent, the Court proceeds in her absence. [ 4 ] The father is incarcerated and was not able to make the steps to attend the meeting by videoconference. He mandated Me Meunier to act on his behalf. He did read the draft agreement and was able to sign it. Me Meunier ensure that the father understood well. [ 5 ] X was absent, but represented by Me Dionne-Marcotte and available by phone if needed.

He also signed the draft agreement and indicated being well at Mr. C and willing to stay there until he reaches his majority. He also plans to go to College and to work in City A. History of the situation [ 6 ] On July 28, 2004 , the Court was seized with an application for a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 7 ] On September 27, 2004 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 13 months old. The father recognized his drug and alcohol addiction issues and he went to a treatment centre on his own. He was detained for assault on his spouse.

He totally recognized that his issues endangered his children. The mother admits having the same addiction issues. She wanted to live again with the father after his release from jail. She also admits that the situation of her children is in danger. The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered and entrusted him to a foster family for a period of six months with a reintegration after four months. [ 8 ] On March 29, 2005 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family.

This measure was prolonged on May 9, 2005. [ 9 ] On June 30, 2005 , the Court revised the situation. The situation of the parents remained very unstable and their relation continued to be punctuated by violence. They also continued to struggle with their consumption even in the presence of their children. On

a positive aspect, the mother was able to improve her parental skills and to become more affectionate with her children. The mother reacted badly to the announce of long-term placement request made by the DYP and left for two months in Saskatchewan. The father was very affectionate with his children, but because of his numerous incarceration, he was not really present in their life.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 10 ] On June 22, 2006 , the Court revised the situation and noted that the mother’s situation was almost irreversible and that X developed strong bonds with his foster family. The Court entrusted X to a foster family until he reaches his majority. [ 11 ] On June 25, 2015 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence shows that X had develop behavioural issues and because of that, the foster family gave up on him. The parents’ situation did not evolve positively. The mother remained unstable and the father was incarcerated again.

The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre for four months with a reintegration in a foster family until he reaches his majority. [ 12 ] On January 21, 2016 , the Court was seized with another application for revision. X continued to display behavioural disturbances. The mother continued to struggle with addiction and the father to be in and out of jail because of his consumption and aggressiveness issues. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until July 6, 2016. [ 13 ] On July 7, 2016 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the adolescent to Ms.

D as a foster family. [ 14 ] On August 2, 2016 , the evidence showed that X improve his behaviour and was doing very well at school. The parents still struggled with their addiction issues. X appeared very happy in his new foster family The Court entrusted him there until June 30, 2017. [ 15 ] On April 7, 2017 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 16 ] On April 25, 2017 , the Court noted that the beginning of the school year was difficult as X was isolating himself and he had disruptive behaviour at school.

Few weeks later, his brother passed away by suicide and X was very affected. Following this tragic event he asked more and more to go back living in City B. His previous foster family accepted to have him back, but shortly after his arrival, he started to display disruptive behaviour again. Because the situation degenerated, the DYP took an immediate protective measure, but even at the rehabilitation centre, the behavioural issues continued to get worse. The parents’ situation did not change. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre for six months with a reintegration to Ms.

E’s care for the following six months. The Court also ordered that X continued his psychological follow-up. [ 17 ] On October 10, 2017 , the Court reviewed the situation and ratified a draft agreement. The parties recognized that X continued to display behavioural issues and the home visits at Ms. E’s place were difficult. X was offered to entrust a Group Home in [Province A] and after having visited it, he agreed to go there. The parents also agreed. The Court entrusted X to Mr. C as responsible for a Group Home in City A for a period of ten months and authorized visits at Ms.

E. [ 18 ] On July 25, 2018 , the Court ratified another draft agreement. The parties indicated that X was doing very well at Mr. C, at school and that he succeed his school year. Unfortunately, the visits at Ms. E did not go well. The Court entrusted the adolescent to Mr. C for a period of one year and authorized visits in City B in foster family or extended family members. [ 19 ] On June 26, 2019 , the Court prolonged the measure for another year. The actual situation [ 20 ] The DYP files the draft agreement signed by the parties.

After verifying that the consent was given freely, the Court declares to agree with the measures and accepts to ratify it. [ 21 ] Considering Mr. C is operating a Group Home outside of the Province of Quebec, X is entrusted specifically to Mr. C under

section 91 (

e) YPA.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003, are still endangered; [ 24 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement; [ 25 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement signed by the parties on June 3, 2020; [ 26 ] ORDERS the parties to comply with the measures; [ 27 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to attach to this judgment a copy of the draft agreement to form an integrant part hereof, and to attach such copy of the judgment to be subsequently delivered; [ 28 ] ORDERS to any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the present decision; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present decision.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Catherine Dionne-Marcotte, attorney for the child Me Antoine Meunier, attorney for the father Date of hearing: June 3, 2020 [NDLE : Ce projet d'entente n'est pas disponible]