r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 20672

Protection de la jeunesse — 157939 2015 QCCQ 20672 COURT OF QUEBEC CXDA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004907-153 760-41-004904-150 760-41-004905-157 760-41-004906-155 DATE: August 13, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2006 Y, born on [...], 2004 Z, born on [...], 2002 A, born on [...], 2001 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents motions for protection concerning the siblings X, Y, Z and A, born respectively on [...], 2006, [...], 2004, [...], 2002 and [...], 2001. [ 2 ] Alleging a situation of endangerment in reason of a serious risk of neglect and, in the case of A, an additional situation of physical abuse, the Director seeks the application of protective measures for one year, while maintaining the children in their family environment. [ 3 ] After receiving the consent of the parties, the Court proceeds on a joint hearing. [ 4 ] The parents consign their admissions and agree with the orientation put forth by the Director.

This also reflects the position of the three younger siblings. [ 5 ] Through his attorney, A indicates being generally in agreement with the orientation, but asks that the measures reflect his present situation, namely that he resides with his mother. He requests the supervision of his contacts with his father; with the possibility of removal of such following mutual agreement. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] The parents separate in September 2014 and agree to exercise joint custody of their four children, each one receiving them on

alternate weeks. [ 8 ] The parents have an oftentimes conflictual relationship, impacting their ability to co-parent effectively, situation of which the children are aware. [ 9 ] For the last year, A presents some behavioural issues, namely that he can be provocative and oppositional. In April, a violent confrontation erupts between A and his father in regards to homework, in the presence of the other siblings. During this incident, the father has recourse to physical and verbal violence, including slapping, pushing and putting his son in a head lock.

He further expulses A from the house, following which the adolescent goes to his mother’s home. [ 10 ] Criminal proceedings are underway in relation to this incident in which A provides a written statement to the police. The father is currently under a prohibition of contacts with his son. The father declares his intention of seeking a variance as to his conditions of release in order to permit access with A. [ 11 ] Since this altercation, A resides with his mother. Although he doesn’t refuse to resume contacts with his father, he states concerns resulting from the incident in April.

He asks for an initial supervision of these contacts in order to ensure their benefit and presumably allay his fears. [ 12 ] Although Z, Y and X are witness to the incident between their brother and father, they underline not feeling fearful of their father’s interventions in their regard. In their regard, the parents continue to exercise shared custody. [ 13 ] As an additional pertinent factor, the evidence demonstrates that in 2013, voluntary measures are put in place for one year in relation to a situation of physical abuse by the father.

During this period, the father receives therapy through Via l’Anse and there is a subsequent closure of the files. [ 14 ] The father, while naming that A’s behaviours are difficult, recognizes that his response was unacceptable.

After evaluation, the Director of Youth Protection retains a situation of physical abuse as to A. [ 15 ] Concurrently, the Director of Youth Protection evaluates and retains a situation of serious risk of neglect due to the mother’s abusive consumption of alcohol and this, in relation to all four children. [ 16 ] Meeting with the caseworker, the mother readily admits using alcohol as a coping mechanism and that she requires help to control her consumption. Having to deal with a number of stressors in her life recently, her alcohol consumption increases.

She states having sought various services concerning this problematic in the recent months, but recognizes that her alcohol consumption remains an issue which impacts the children. [ 17 ] The children are aware of their mother’s alcohol use and relate that she can be intoxicated while they are under her care. Y and X are particularly vigilant to their mother’s drinking, stating their feelings of discomfort and fear when they see her under the influence of alcohol.

They are able to relate numerous specific details as to the frequency and indicators of their mother’s drinking. [ 18 ] As of the Director’s implication, the parents collaborate openly, recognize their mutual and joint difficulties and declare being ready to receive aid and counsel. [ 19 ] In this vein, the father renews meetings with Via l’Anse , in regards to his impulse and anger issues.

The mother undertakes to pursue her participation in meetings with Alcoholics Anonymous . [ 20 ] The parents are dealing with personal issues which impact their parental capacities as well as their abilities to properly respond to their children’s various needs, and which further create the situations of endangerment alleged. [ 21 ] After taking into consideration the parties' admissions as well as the documentary evidence, the Court considers that the allegations in the proceeding are proven to its satisfaction, giving rise to the application of protective measures sought, except for the following. [ 22 ] As to A, his interests dictate that the measures reflect his actual situation, namely that he resides with his mother, while providing the structure of an eventual resumption of contacts with his father.

It is necessary to offer an accompaniment to A, as well as his parents, in order to resolve the issues having led to the incident of April and operate a serene renewal of his relationship with his father.

The conclusions reflect this imperative. [ 23 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reason of a serious risk of neglect; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of A is also in danger in reason of physical abuse; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS X, Y and Z to their parents; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS A to his mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between A and his father be determined following mutual agreement between the parties and under the supervision of a third party determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] PERMITS the withdrawal of said supervision following agreement between the parties;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or In their children’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the children as well as the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family for one year; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: August 13, 2015