2016 QCCQ 6591, 2016 QCCQ 6591

Protection de la jeunesse — 162761 2016 QCCQ 6591 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001970-166 DATE: April 12 th 2016 PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE JEAN GRAVEL, J.Q.C. IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...] 2016 Child [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Father JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1) 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 submits that the security and development of the child, X are in danger. [ 2 ] The parents were present in Court on April 12 th 2016. They admit most of the alleged facts but disagree with the measures proposed by the Director. [ 3 ] The child is two months and three weeks old.

He has been living with his parents but not continuously between January 21 st and February 12 th 2016. He has not seen his parents since that moment. [ 4 ] On February 12 th 2016, the mother called the Director saying that she did not want the baby anymore. [ 5 ] She had made the same statement on February 4 th . She signed a voluntary agreement on February 9 th for the placement of the child into foster care. [ 6 ] The parents were notified of two Court appearances on February 19 th and February 22 nd 2016, at which time their child’s situation was to be presented.

They did not show up. [ 7 ] On February 29 th 2016, the parents told the social worker that they did not want to be involved in the child’s life any longer. They made the same affirmation on March 1 st 2016. They agreed that the child be adopted or placed on a long-term basis. [ 8 ] The mother had already declared during her pregnancy that she wanted her child to be adopted. [ 9 ] The Director has made steps to find a placement in foster care in an Inuit community, without success.

[ 10 ] A Cree family was identified for the placement but these individuals had a criminal background which did not allow a safe environment for the child. [ 11 ] The child lives in foster care in the [region A]. [ 12 ] The mother told the social worker in February that she feared the father as he had assaulted her on some occasions. [ 13 ] The father admits that he hasn’t asked about his son’s situation since February.

He says that he now has changed his mind and that he wants the baby back with them. [ 14 ] The conjugal relation between the parents is not clear either. [ 15 ] The child is in a situation of abandonment because of the ambivalent declarations of the parents regarding their involvement with him. [ 16 ] The parents need to make positive actions to show that they are serious in their will to have their child back with them. [ 17 ] The distance between the parents’ domicile and the foster family will be an obstacle but no other family could be found to take care of a child that the parents did not want anymore.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are in danger in virtue of

Section 38

a) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan for the child aimed at ensuring continuing of care, a stable relationship and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age; [ 22 ] TAKES NOTICE that the parents are still present and that said life plan could involve the parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 24 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding healthcare, daycare, travelling and passport; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents be proactive during the application of the measures; [ 27 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE until August 31 st 2016. __________________________________ JEAN GRAVEL, J.Q.C.

Mtre Donald Bourget, Attorney for the applicant Mtre Cassandra Neptune, Attorney for the child Mtre Angèle Tommasel, Attorney for the mother Mtre Marie-Claude De Gagné, Attorney for the father