2020 QCCQ 14724, 2020 QCCQ 14724

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010094 2020 QCCQ 14724 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000653-147 DATE: December 15, 2020 (written judgment rendered on January 18, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 September 23, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to Ms.

B, proximity foster family, until the child reaches the age of majority. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the adolescent to her mother and suggests that she be entrusted to a foster family, until July 31, 2021.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Due to funerals, the mother is not present nor represented, but she signed a draft agreement and she filled a letter confirming her agreement and requesting to proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The youth is also absent for the same reason, but she was met by her lawyer, Me Catherine Dionne-Marcotte and gave her the mandate to sign the draft agreement, saying being very well in her new foster family.

History of the Situation [ 5 ] On December 4, 2014 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family as provisional measures. [ 6 ] On January 13, 2015 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The family already received services from the DYP because of difficulty to exercise the parental role. After the parents’ separation, X was living with her father. The mother had important difficulties which prevent her from being able to have the custody of her children. The father passed away in November 2013, and since then, X and her sibling were living in foster families.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered and entrusted her to a foster family until she reaches her majority considering the impossibility for the mother to care for her in the future. [ 7 ] On December 14, 2018 , the Court entrusted the child to her sister, Ms. B as provisional measures. [ 8 ] On January 8, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. X was living in the same foster family since January 2015, but at the beginning of the school year 2018-2019, she started displaying behavioural issues at school and at home. The foster parents gave up and the sister agreed to foster her.

The Court entrusted her to her sister for a period of nine months. [ 9 ] On September 23, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. X behaviour improved a lot since she is entrusted to her sister. She visits her mother regularly and the contacts are positive. The Court entrusted her to her sister, Ms. B until she reaches her majority. [ 10 ] On October 1, 2020 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted X to a foster family. On October 5, 2020, the Court was seized and entrusted X to Ms. C as provisional measures.

On November 3, 2020, the placement was not working anymore and the Court entrusted X to a foster family. She went to Ms. D’s place.

Facts [ 11 ] The parties filed the draft agreement. Ms. [social worker 1] testifies that X was very happy to her new environment. X told her that nobody had ever cared so much from her than Ms. D. She feels very well there and already speaks about staying there until her majority. [ 12 ] X was maintained in her previous school, which is School A in Town A in an English program, but she seriously think about the possibility to be transferred in French schooling next year saying that she want to become bilingual. She is aware that it could be quite difficult and she will continue to think about that.

The decision will be taken during the summer. Analysis [ 13 ] The draft agreement is in the best interest of X. Considering the numerous living environments she went through, the Court is satisfied that the DYP consent to name the foster family. Indeed, it is in the best interest of X to be entrusted specifically there even if it is not a majority placement and it is also in her interest that the Court be seized if something wrong happened.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are still endangered; [ 16 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement; [ 17 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement signed by the parties on December 15, 2020; [ 18 ] ORDERS the parties to comply with the measures; [ 19 ] 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; [ 20 ] 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 Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Catherine Dionne-Marcotte, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: December 15, 2020