2023 QCCQ 8829, 2023 QCCQ 8829

Protection de la jeunesse — 234736 2023 QCCQ 8829 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] “Youth Division” No.: 100-41-002020-230 DATE: July 26, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE LUCIE MORISSETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X Born on 2019- […] Child and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine ( ss. 9.2, 9.3, and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) has applied for the review of the order rendered on April 19, 2021, providing in particular for the child’s placement with the foster family of B until he reaches the age of majority on [...], 2037. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to prohibit contact between the mother and the child, in the child’s interest. [ 3 ] The mother was absent from the hearing. [ 4 ] Counsel for the child, after hearing the testimony of the caseworker and that of B, recommended that the Court prohibit contact between the child and the mother .

Overview since April 19, 2021 [ 5 ] The DYP intervened in the child’s situation because he was at serious risk of neglect. He was subject to psychological ill- treatment and at serious risk of physical abuse. [ 6 ] Although the order provided for contact between the child and the mother by agreement between the parties, failing which, it would take place at least twice every other week for two(2) hours under supervision, the mother has not exercised any contact. [ 7 ] Ms. B also cares for the child’s sister Y. [ 8 ] On January 10, 2023, Ms. B received an email from the mother who wanted to

schedule a FaceTime call with Y. [ 9 ] Ms. B told the mother to contact the caseworker if she wanted to have contact with the child. She informed the DYP’s caseworker about this. [ 10 ] During this email exchange, the mother did not request any contact with X although he was living under the same roof as his sister. [ 11 ] The mother did not contact the caseworker and the FaceTime contact did not take place. [ 12 ] The mother has six (6) children: Z is an adult and lives in Iqaluit .

The other three children, C, D, and E are placed with F until they each reach the age of majority. [ 13 ] Y, who is 5 years old, is subject to a placement order until she reaches the age of majority in the home of Ms. B, where the child is also placed.

[ 14 ] The two foster family caregivers are open to scheduling meetings between the children. [ 15 ] In application of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families , [1] the Court order must preserve the child’s cultural identity. [ 16 ] In the order rendered on April 19, 2021, the Honourable Andrée St-Pierre J. stated that no family member belonging to the Indigenous community or people to which the child belongs, or to an Indigenous people other than the one to which the child belongs, stepped forward to assume responsibility for the child. [ 17 ] The older siblings, who are placed with Ms.

F, attend the A School where they do schoolwork related to their culture. [ 18 ] The child may eventually be schooled at A School. [ 19 ] In addition, Ms. B is open to taking concrete steps to preserve the child’s cultural identify as much as possible. ANALYSIS Is it in the child’s interest to prohibit contact with the mother? [ 20 ] The fundamental criteria that must guide the Court in ruling on contact is the child’s interest. Courts have repeatedly reminded us about the parameters to be considered and weighed when it comes to determining the terms of contact between the child and a parent.

Here are a few excerpts: - Parents’ contact with a child must be enriching for the child, must be beneficial to the child, and meet a need; [2] - The test of the child’s best interest includes the benefit to be derived by this child from his or her relationship with the parent; [3] - The child should be at the centre of the courts' concerns as it is the child's rights which are at issue, not those of the parents. [4] [ 21 ] To apply these criteria to the evidence adduced, it is important to provide an overview of the situation concerning contact between the mother and the child until this day. [ 22 ] The mother does not ask about the child. [ 23 ] She maintains contact with her three children placed in the other foster family, but does nothing concerning X. [ 24 ] In the past, the mother communicated with Ms.

B to do a video call with Y, but never with X. When Ms. B asked her why she refuses to talk to X, she did not answer. [ 25 ] Ms. B offered to send her photos of the children at the A daycare. The mother refused to receive any photos of X. Ms. B took the liberty of sending her one with the child in it. [ 26 ] At home, Ms. B has photos of the five (5) children taken during meetings between the two (2) foster families on her refrigerator. [ 27 ] In the child’s eyes, Ms. B is his mother. He calls her mom. [ 28 ] She took him into her home when he was just two (2) days’ old when he left the hospital.

Seven (7) weeks passed without any contact with the mother. [ 29 ] He was entrusted to the mother from July 27 to September 28, 2020, when he returned to Ms. B’s home. [ 30 ] In this case, not only does the mother not request any contact with the child, she also shows a complete lack of interest in him. [ 31 ] Establishing contact between the mother and the child would be against the child’s interest. Contact would not be enriching for or beneficial to the child, nor would any of his needs be met. [ 32 ] The Court finds that it is in the child’s interest to prohibit contact with the mother.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] REVIEWS the order rendered on April 19, 2021; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the child’s security or development is still in danger under ss. 38 b) 2, 38 c), and 38 e) 2 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the application of the following measures until [...], 2037, when he reaches the age of majority: [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be placed with the foster family of B; [ 38 ] PROHIBITS contact between the mother and the child; [ 39 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and his siblings be facilitated;

[ 40 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of the attributes of parental authority and AUTHORIZES B, the foster family, to exercise the attributes of parental authority; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to report in person to the Director of Youth Protection when required to inform her of the current situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a caseworker designated by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counselling, and assistance to the child and his mother; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order.

Translation of the judgment rendered on July 26, 2023. __________________________________ LUCIE MORISSETTE, J.C.Q. Mtre Julie Goulet Goulet, Langlais, Chassé & Lajoie, Avocates Counsel for the applicant Mtre Carol Abud Counsel for the child Date of hearing: July 12, 2023