2012 QCCQ 9482, 2012 QCCQ 9482

Protection de la jeunesse — 121323 2012 QCCQ 9482 JG2072 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-006166-104 DATE : March 27 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MARIO GERVAIS ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of le Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- X , born on […], 1999 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Section 95 (1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of March 27 th , 2012, in accordance with the provisions of

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection, acting through a duly authorized youth protection worker, (the Director) petitions the Court with a Motion for Revision and Extension of a Court decision, according to Sections 95 (1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X , born on […], 1999 . [ 3 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that since the Court order rendered on April 8 th , 2011, the mother's personal situation and her

relationship with the child has improved significally, while the father's situation has remained the same. The Director recommends mainly that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of four months, followed by her reintegration into the care of her mother with a social follow-up. [ 4 ] The father is absent. The Motion was personally served upon him on March 16 th , 2012. The hearing was held in his absence. [ 5 ] The mother admits most of the facts alleged in the Motion.

She is in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 6 ] The child admits most of the facts alleged in the Motion. She is in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 7 ] Of assent and to be worth proof, the Director filed as Exhibit D-2 an analysis of the child's social situation. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of the child. [ 9 ] In accordance with the Court order rendered on April 8 th , 2011, the child resides in a foster family.

A first Court order, rendered on September 7 th , 2010 also provided such a placement. [ 10 ] Both Court orders were rendered to correct a situation which compromises the security and the development of the children because of the existence of a serious risk of parental negligence, mainly a substance abuse problem by the parents and mental illness of the father. [ 11 ] The child evolves positively in her foster home and does not present behavioural disturbances. She is remarkably autonomous while assuming her responsibilities. [ 12 ] On her part, the mother's situation has evolved positively.

She attends all meetings with the Director. She has her own apartment. She attends courses in indoor decoration. [ 13 ] Contacts between the child and the mother have been regular and to the satisfaction of the parties. Since January 2012, the child visits her mother every two weekends. The mothers plans the visits in order to spend quality time and make sure they are pleasant for the child. In addition, they speak on the phone almost on a daily basis. [ 14 ] Before each visit, the mother meets with the Director. At all times, the mother is clean and sober. [ 15 ] The father's personal situation remains the same.

He still justifies his behaviour or absences with all sort of incredible stories. His talks with the Director are incoherent at times. [ 16 ] The father is followed by a psychiatrist. The father is not compliant with the medication to be taken nor with the prescribed dosage. [ 17 ] Contacts between the father and the child are irregular. At times, the father is just not showing up. His absences are of impact on the child. [ 18 ] In the past, the child had difficulty to express what she wanted, fearing to hurt people.

Nowadays, she is quite clear the she wishes her contacts with her mother to increase and that a reintegration into her mother's home take place at the end of the school year. [ 19 ] The child is also affirmative when stating that she wishes her contacts with her father to remain in the presence of a third party. She feels secure by this presence. She does not want to cope alone with her father's incoherent or inappropriate comments. [ 20 ] The situation of the child, the mother and the quality of their relationship favours their reunion at the end of the school year.

In the meantime, the child shall remain in her foster home with extensive contacts with her mother. [ 21 ] Once the familial reintegration is completed, the social follow-up of the Director will be beneficial to support the child and the mother who will face the challenge of resuming life together. [ 22 ] As for the contacts between the child and her father, they must remain under the supervision of a third party.

Nothing has improved sufficiently to reconsider such a measure. [ 23 ] FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 26 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on April 18 th , 2011; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by Le Centre jeunesse A for a period of four months; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS afterward the child to the care of her mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be upon agreement between the parties during the placement;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be upon agreement between the parties and supervised by a third party desingated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. ________________________________ Mario Gervais, J.C.Q. M e François Arteau-Gauthier Attorney for DYP M e Lyne Morin Attorney for the child M e Renée Ste-Marie Attorney for the mother