2012 QCCQ 15401, 2012 QCCQ 15401

Protection de la jeunesse — 121106 2012 QCCQ 15401 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 640-41-001345-104 640-41-001344-107 DATE: February 6, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN : X Born on […] Y Born on […] [Social Worker 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in [Town A] Applicant and B Mother and C Father of Z ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is presenting the Court with a motion to review a decision rendered last November by the undersigned judge who ordered the foster placement of the two little girls, X and Y, born […] and […] respectively. [ 2 ] The length of the said placement had then been set to three months, since the applicant had clearly indicated that she intended to call upon the Court again shortly to ask for a long-term measure for the two children. [ 3 ] So now, she is asking the Court to order the placement to majority of Z and Y. [ 4 ] Both the mother and father of Z are present and assisted by counsel.

They are opposed to the measure, whereas the children’s lawyer does not take position in this respect considering their young age. [ 5 ] Based on the fact that the current length of the placement has reached and even exceeded that provided in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act [1] , the applicant’s main argument to justify the nature of her motion is that there are no other alternatives but to order a placement to majority. [ 6 ] In reply, the parents state that the mother is able to take corrective action in order to end the endangered situation in the short term. [ 7 ] From the admissions made, the documents filed and the evidence heard, the Court notes the following essential elements. [ 8 ] Z is a little girl not quite two years old, born of the union of Ms. A and Mr.

B. [ 9 ] As to Y, who is two and a half years old, her birth certificate does not indicate the father’s name and nobody has claimed fatherhood for the child. [ 10 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved with the mother and her children since the month of June 2010. [ 11 ] In November of the same year, a report was made to the Director of Youth Protection alleging basically that there was an

alcohol abuse problem on the part of the mother. [ 12 ] An investigation revealed at the time that she did have serious addiction problems that negatively affected her ability to provide adequately for her children. . [ 13 ] Not only is the mother unable to see to the security and well-being of her daughters but she also becomes aggressive and even violent with them. [ 14 ] On the basis that such events were observed more than once, immediate protective measures are taken to withdraw the children from the family environment. [ 15 ] Shortly after, i.e., on December 8, 2010, a provisional order was rendered for the foster placement of the children until a hearing could take place on the main application. [ 16 ] Then, on February 8, 2011, a hearing is held with the parties and a decision is made to allow the foster placement to be maintained for another four months mainly with a view to give the mother the chance to embark on a healing process for her alcohol abuse problems. [ 17 ] On this date already, Ms.

B states that she is ready to take a hold of her life and to get involved in whatever process is needed to do so. [ 18 ] Again in June 2011, the Court is seized of the case through an application for review that mainly alleged the lack of change in the parties’ behaviour. [ 19 ] At the hearing heard in [Ville A] on June 20, 2011, the mother expresses that the continuation of the placement for another six months as required by the Director of Youth Protection is too long, especially now that she has been completely sober for two weeks. [ 20 ] Honourable Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q., in her judgment, noted a statement made by the mother where she would be starting treatment in Town B very shortly. [ 21 ] Madam Justice also indicated that some improvement had been observed in the recent past, following the February judgment, but that it did not hold.

Then Ms. B quit her job and resumed heavy drinking. She was even arrested in June for drug trafficking. [ 22 ] Honourable Justice Gagnon took note of the mother’s will to regain control over her life, but yet reported that many questions remained unanswered and that the situation depended on the will and capacity of Ms.

B to solve the problem. [ 23 ] Again this past November, the undersigned is seized of the case following the applicant’s motion to review the decision once more. [ 24 ] Basically, the reasons for the motion remain the same. [ 25 ] Again the mother expresses her will to get a hold of her life so she can provide her daughters with an adequate environment. [ 26 ] At the hearing and in the written judgment that followed, it is clearly indicated that the time has come to consider a long-term solution that will provide Z and Y with minimum stability. [ 27 ] Therefore, the message to the parents could not be more precise, that is, were the steps required to that objective not taken, a long-term placement would be contemplated. [ 28 ] The children were then entrusted to their respective foster family for an additional period of three months while such a long- term plan was developed. [ 29 ] In the same way, it gave the parents, especially the mother, a last chance to show her will and capacity to regain control over the situation. [ 30 ] As announced, the Director of Youth Protection again called upon the Court to review the last order and ask for the placement to majority of the two children. [ 31 ] The motives remain the same, that is, the mother’s inability to solve the problem situation despite the assistance and the strategies provided by the applicant. [ 32 ] In this respect, the evidence suggests that, on a least two occasions, the Director of Youth Protection took all the steps for the admission of the mother to treatment, but each time she did not follow through. [ 33 ] Just the same, after the hearing this past November, Ms.

B went to the Social Services office once and started to fill the required forms, stating that she had no other choice. Nevertheless, once again, she did not complete the process on time for admission. [ 34 ] The mother explains in her testimony why she did not go through.

She says that she would rather work, reside in the same community as her children and also that she is hesitant about going to the community where the treatment is provided because there is a bar. [ 35 ] She goes on to say that she does not think she has a drinking problem and, in any case, that she has been sober for a month. [ 36 ] Moreover, she considers that the Director of Youth Protection and the current foster families cause her children to be in danger, but without substantiating her statement.

[ 37 ] In her view, the way the foster parents take Z out in a sled presents a risk for her daughter, as she would carry her on her back. [ 38 ] As to the child’s father, he is not really present in his daughter’s life. [ 39 ] Although he sees her now and then when she comes to her mother for a visit, he does not get involved in any significant way in her life. [ 40 ] With regard to his relationship with Ms.

B, both the evidence and the concerned persons’ position are obscure. [ 41 ] In all likelihood it is a sporadic love relationship, of which alcohol-related problems and violence are a part. [ 42 ] The Director of Youth Protection is of the opinion that Mr. C has a negative influence on Ms. B, but the evidence remains ambiguous in this respect. [ 43 ] Therefore the applicant, going over the parties’ position, considers that, after more than thirteen months of foster placement, there is cause to implement

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act [2] and to order a long-term placement. [ 44 ] The mother, supported by Mr. C in this respect, says that she could regain control over the situation and provide an acceptable life environment to her daughters. [ 45 ] In

section 91.1 are enacted the following provisions: 91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. Considerations When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. Continuity of care If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis.

Imminent return to family However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

Continuity of care At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. 2006, c. 34, s. 63 . [3] [ 46 ] The objective sought through these provisions is to prevent children from being kept in a state of instability and uncertainty regarding a potential return with their parents. [ 47 ] In cases of very young children, as soon as more than twelve months have gone by since the child was entrusted to a foster family, a long-term placement must be considered. [ 48 ] Hence this will be done, unless a child can be returned to the natural environment in the short term or if there are serious reasons to depart from the provisions.

Of course, the child’s best interest must be taken into account first. [ 49 ] In the circumstances of this case, the facts described earlier reveal that it is far from probable that the girls can be entrusted to their mother in the near future. [ 50 ] Clearly, Ms. B does not acknowledge her addiction problem and she agrees to take concrete and structured steps to solve the problem, by going to treatment for example, only to meet the expectations of both the Director of Youth Protection and the Court.

[ 51 ] The applicant considers that the mother does not show a genuine will to reach stability in her life and control over her alcohol intake in order to be able to provide her children with a healthy and secure environment. [ 52 ] In the face of this sad conclusion, the Court cannot but conclude that the provision enacted in

section 91.1 must be implemented and a placement to majority ordered. [ 53 ] As to the foster families selected by the Director of Youth Protection, it was shown at the hearing that they are adequate and willing to take on the two children on the long term. [ 54 ] Concerning Y, she has been living since December 2010 with Ms. D, a non-aboriginal missionary, 52 years of age, who has been residing in the community of [Town A] since 1997. [ 55 ] From the outset, she has been designated by the mother as the “potential foster home”. [ 56 ] The vision of Ms.

D appears healthy and adequate to the Court in the sense that she clearly and perfectly understands that she is not Y’s mother and that the girl will have regular contacts with her biological family. [ 57 ] In the same way, she is fully aware of the cultural specificities of the little girl and she intends to promote them. [ 58 ] Clearly Y has adapted well to her as she is provided with a stable, healthy and secure environment. [ 59 ] The same basic comments can be made about the foster family selected by the Director of Youth Protection to accommodate Z.

The foster parents are E and F, both working at the Health Centre B. [ 60 ] At first, the couple had simply accepted to take care of the little girl for a few days until a new foster home was found.

However, in the course of the events, they have kept assuming this responsibility for a few months now. [ 61 ] They bonded with the child and today they are willing to keep providing care for her for as long as required. [ 62 ] They also are aware of the fact that they are not the parents of the little girl and that it is important for her to preserve her family ties. [ 63 ] Essentially, they intend to treat Z as their own child and they are ready to get involved over a long period of time. [ 64 ] The Court, therefore, considers that both foster families are adequate and capable of being entrusted with the children. [ 65 ] In the circumstances, it is then in their best interest to order a placement to majority in the said family environments. [ 66 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 67 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 68 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children, X and Y, are still endangered; [ 69 ] DECLARES that it is not expected that the children will be returned to their family in the short term; [ 70 ] ORDERS the foster care of Y, born on [...], 2009, in the foster family suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, namely D, until the child reaches majority; [ 71 ] ORDERS the foster care of X, born on [...], 2010 in the foster family suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, namely E and F, until the child reaches majority; [ 72 ] ORDERS that the parents’ access and visitation rights be supervised as to the terms and conditions; [ 73 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober and to abstain from consuming alcohol or drugs when the children are with them; [ 74 ] ORDERS that Z and Y have regular contacts together under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 75 ] AUTHORIZES the foster families or the Director of Youth Protection, in the best interest of the children, to give all the authorizations and sign all the documents necessary for any relevant matters including medical, school and travel documents; [ 76 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children, the foster families and the parents; [ 77 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this judgment; [ 78 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the children

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the mother Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the father of Z Date of hearing: January 17, 2012