2021 QCCQ 15323, 2021 QCCQ 15323

Protection de la jeunesse — 219065 2021 QCCQ 15323 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 610-41-000613-133 DATE: December 13, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 14, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2006 [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 of A Applicant and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 December 14, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2006. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted X to his maternal aunt, Ms. B and his uncle Mr. C, knowing that Mr.

C is a proximity foster family, until December 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his mother and that the placement in a foster family has to be prolonged until he reaches his majority. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite many attempts, the mother was not served due to her being unreacha-ble. She never communicated with the DYP since the last order. The youth had some rare contacts with her. The adolescent insists to proceed. The Court is satisfied by the attempts made by the DYP to reach the mother and dispense the DYP to serve her.

Considering the best interest of the adolescent, the Court proceeds in the mother’s absence. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Catherine Dionne-Marcotte. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On August 21, 2013 , the Court was seized with an application for protection and ratified a draft agreement. The parties recognized their consumption issues and the impact on the child who was a witness of conjugal violent events. X had academic difficulties at school.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and ordered that the child remained under his parents’ care with different services. [ 6 ] On June 26, 2014 , the Court entrusted X to his maternal aunt under provisional measures. [ 7 ] On August 20, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that the conjugal relationship between the parents remained very unstable and violent. They did not seek help for their personal issues. The father had been detained for conjugal violence. The mother moved to Town A with her children.

In June 2014, X and his siblings were found unattended in a car’s dealer parking lot. The mother was highly intoxicated. X was entrusted to his paternal aunt as an immediate protective measure. The mother did not participate in the visits she had with her son, choosing to drink instead. The Court entrusted X to his paternal aunt for a period of one year. [ 8 ] On August 26, 2015 , the Court was seized with a revision. The mother’s situation remained unstable. She participated to a therapy for her addiction, but failed to participate in the after-care program. She had left the community without informing anybody.

She did not see her son since May 2015. X was doing much better at school. The Court entrusted the child to his paternal aunt for a period of 6 months.

[ 9 ] On February 3, 2016 , the child was entrusted to a foster family under provisional measures. [ 10 ] On March 18, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was still struggling with her addiction, but she stopped consuming since she was pregnant. The father was detained. The child was developing well at his paternal aunt. The Court entrusted him to his paternal aunt until he reaches his majority. [ 11 ] On August 23, 2019 , the Court entrusted X to a foster family under provisional measures. [ 12 ] On October 16, 2019 , the Court revised the situation again.

Since the last decision, the father was in and out from detention. X started consuming marijuana at 10 years old. He met with a psychologist to address his past traumas. X was affected by his mother’s situation and her absence. X developed some issues regarding lying and stealing. Because of those issues, the foster parents (aunt and uncle) gave up. Moreover, X was willing to start a new life in a new community with new foster parents. The new foster parents have experienced the same difficulties with X: drug consumption, stealing, lying, and running away.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 13 ] On November 2, 2020 , the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre under provisional measures. [ 14 ] On December 14, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that X was entrusted to a new foster family and the beginning of this placement was difficult as he made bad choices. Before the provisional hearing, although the foster parents were willing to have him until his majority, they changed their minds due the adolescent behaviours (running away, consumption of marijuana, suicidal thoughts).

X had to be placed in a rehabilitation centre. A short placement was sufficient for X to change his behaviour and it was in his best interest that he could go back close to his family members. His maternal aunt and her spouse raised their hands to foster X and he really wanted to go there. The Court entrusted him to his aunt and uncle and ordered that he receive the services that he need, the whole until December 31, 2021. Facts and Analysis [ 15 ] Considering the absence of contestation, 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.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2006, are still endangered; [ 18 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement; [ 19 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement signed by the parties on December 13, 2021; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parties to comply with the measures; [ 21 ] 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; [ 22 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES Mr.

C to sign all consents to meet the child’s needs (schooling, sports and cultural activities, health care, driving licence, passport and travelling); [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Pierre Grygiel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Catherine Dionne-Marcotte, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: December 13, 2021 [NDLE : Ce projet d’entente n’est pas disponible.]