2022 QCCQ 14303, 2022 QCCQ 14303

Protection de la jeunesse — 229025 2022 QCCQ 14303 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF abitibi TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002388-194 DATE: August 10, 2022 (written judgment rendered on October 3, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on July 15, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2018. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until November 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her mother and asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely to her maternal grandmother, Ms.

B, until the age of majority. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. The DYP worker went to her place the day of the hearing to convince her to come at the office to attend the hearing by videoconference, but she refused. She just asked the DYP worker to inform her lawyer that she contests the measures, but that she would not be there.

Considering that the mother was dully served, reminded many times about the hearing and considering that an interpreter is finally present to assist the maternal grandmother, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] X is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. After taking acknowledges of the evidence, Me Neptune submits to the Court that the situation of the child continues to be endangered and that the recommended measures are in her best interest.

History of the Situation [ 5 ] On October 8, 2019 , the Court entrusted the child to her maternal grandmother in Town A and order that the child’s maternal aunt living in Town B be assessed as a potential foster family. [ 6 ] On April 28, 2020 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. The child was 1 and a half years old. The mother had alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. She had signed voluntary measures in August 2019, and since then the child is living with her maternal grandmother in Town A.

The mother was also supposed to live there, but she came back one month after, with the child. The DYP entrusted back the child under the maternal grandmother’s care. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family and recommended that it be the one of the maternal grandmother, the whole until September 30, 2020. [ 7 ] On September 9, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother asserts that her situation improved, but her collaboration was poor so the DYP was not able to verify the facts.

The child remained with her maternal grandmother and due to Covid travelling restrictions, the contacts with the mother could not take place. The Court maintained the child with the maternal grandmother, but authorized that she be reintegrated if the situation allows it, the whole until February 28, 2021. [ 8 ] On September 30, 2020 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family under provisional measures.

[ 9 ] On October 23, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The maternal grandmother mentioned being tired and that her health does not allow her to take care of the child. The child was entrusted to the specialized foster family in Town B which could facilitate the contact with the mother. The DYP thought to be able to start a reintegration under the mother care soon. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family with a gradual reintegration with the mother, the whole until February 28, 2021. [ 10 ] On February 2, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The conjugal situation of the mother is unclear.

The mother did not take the opportunity to have contact with her child despite the numerous organized ones. The child displays signs of deficient attachment bond. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until July 31, 2021. [ 11 ] On July 15, 2021 , the Court revised again the situation. The Court notes that since she was one year old, the child went through 13 placements. Since the last decision, the child is under her maternal grandmother’s care in Town A. The mother’s situation did not improve, and she did not take steps to seek help.

The Court said being very concerned by the child’s lack of stability. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and took judicial notice that the child would be entrusted under her maternal grandmother’s care, the whole until November 30, 2021. Facts [ 12 ] Since the last decision, the child lives in Town A with her maternal grandmother. She is there since the decision rendered in February 2021. She was 2 and a half years old at that time. [ 13 ] The child is developing very well with her grandmother. She is not attending daycare as there are no available spots.

She remains at home with her grandmother. [ 14 ] The mother is still struggling with her alcohol addiction issues. She is not involved in her daughter’s life and does not collaborate with the DYP. [ 15 ] In July 2021, the maternal grandfather living in Town B passed away. The grandmother planned to come for the funerals, but considering the numerous restrictions due to Covid-19 and the difficulty to travel with a child in such circumstances, she renounced to come. [ 16 ] In August 2021, the maternal uncle of the child, also living in Town B passed away.

The maternal grandmother decided to travel to attend her son’s funerals. The mother was informed that her daughter would arrive. [ 17 ] The mother was made aware that the first visit would be supervised considering the long period of time without contacts. The mother reacted very aggressively to such measure. The visit happened in the presence of the maternal grandmother. [ 18 ] The maternal grandmother immediately raised concerns about her daughter’s parental skills and the facts that there was an odour of cannabis in the house.

She also mentioned that the mother had no healthy food to provide to her daughter and only offered her candies and junk food. Even if the maternal grandmother tried to reasoning and structure her daughter, the mother was not receptive at all. [ 19 ] In June 2022, another trip to Town B was organized, but the child repeated many times before travelling that she would not like to go in Town B nor to see her mother. During the trip, the grandmother had to constantly comfort the child. Once arrived in Town B, the contact between the child and the mother was not positive.

The mother had been disrespectful against her mother and had put pressure on her daughter to come back living with her. [ 20 ] The child also refused to enter in the mother’s house and cried a lot to the point that the visit was ended. [ 21 ] Outside of those physical contacts, the mother never asks for contacts by phone nor by video calls. [ 22 ] The contacts with the other family members went well.

Analysis [ 23 ] The situation of the child continues to be endangered for the same reason as it had been declared by the Court. [ 24 ] The mother took no steps to improve her situation and she refused the services and the counsels offered to her. [ 25 ] The maximum period of placement is reached and the mother does not demonstrate that she could be in a position to have her daughter back in a short delay. [ 26 ] The plan suggested by the DYP fulfil the child’s need. She is well taken care by her maternal grandmother, and she developed string bonds with her.

It is in the best interest of the child to give her the opportunity to obtain the stability that she deserves. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are still endangered; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Ms. B, as a foster family until the age of majority; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Tribunal;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother (education, health, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport) and GRANTS these attributes to Ms.

B; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 37 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and to maintain a collaboration with the Youth Protection services B; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child and the family receive the support from the Youth Protection Services until the child reaches her majority; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2036. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: August 10, 2022