2020 QCCQ 13466, 2020 QCCQ 13466

Protection de la jeunesse — 209354 2020 QCCQ 13466 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002425-202 DATE: March 23, 2020 (written judgment rendered on June 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] AND [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii., (

c) and (e) (2) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child remain with her parents with services. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered under 38 (b) (1) iii. and (e) (2), but not under

section (c). She agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. Considering the best interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Migué. On her young client’s behalf, Me Migué submits to the Court that her security and development should be declared endangered on the three alleged aspects and recommends the Court to order the suggested measures and to authorize unannounced visits at the parent’s place.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On February 6, 2020 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and the child was entrusted to a foster family. On February 12, 2020 , The Court prolonged the foster home placement. Facts [ 7 ] X is the first child born from the parents’ union, but the parents have, each other, children born from a previous union. The mother had two adults who are living with her and two adolescents who are entrusted until majority.

The youngest daughter of the father recently turned 18 and lives with him. [ 8 ] Each parent has his own house located right across the street. [ 9 ] On January 1, 2020, the parents consumed alcohol and the DYP was called to intervene. The mother refused to give the child’s name, and the baby was entrusted for the night.

[ 10 ] The day after, the mother was met. She recognized her consumption of the previous night and understood the importance to have a babysitter if she drinks. [ 11 ] Another event occurred on January 27, 2020. Both parents were intoxicated. The police intervention was needed as the mother locked herself in the house. The police had to break the window to enter. The mother did not collaborate and refused to provide any clothes for the child. The DYP worker took the baby and wrapped her in a blanket. [ 12 ] The day after the mother came at the DYP office by herself and admitted the situation.

She explained that she consumes only with the father and seemed to understand the impact on X. She would like to address her consumption issues. [ 13 ] The mother offered many names of potential foster families. One of her cousins, living in Town A, was accepted by the DYP and the mother left for Town A to live with her cousin and X. [ 14 ] She also filled out a form to entrust an addiction treatment centre in Town B. [ 15 ] The father was also met, but refused to collaborate.

He also refused to come at the provisional hearing as he refused to attend this hearing. [ 16 ] The mother’s cousin confirmed that everything is going well with the mother and the child and also that the mother did not consume since her arrival except once, and X was safely babysat. The unannounced visits were always very positive. The DYP worker is very proud of the mother’s mobilization. [ 17 ] Currently, the main concern is the conjugal violence. To evaluate the situation, the DYP worker asked the mother to come back from Town A a few days before the Court.

During those few days, the mother continued to offer a very good collaboration. Between the parents, only one event occurred since the mother’s return. They consumed together, but one reliable and sober adult was present. As usual, the mother went to the office the day after and totally recognized the situation. [ 18 ] The father refuses to collaborate, but maintains his interest to have his daughter with him. [ 19 ] The DYP worker explains that she would prefer to entrust the child to both parents to be able to closely supervise the situation in the two houses.

The facts that the father bought plane ticket to see the mother during the provisional placement without informed the DYP raises concerns regarding the father’s transparency. Analysis [ 20 ] The Court shares the DYP’s position regarding the grounds of compromising which should be considered at the time of the motion (end of January 2020).

At that time, two interventions on a short period had been needed because of the parent’s consumption and doing so, their lack of physical and emotional availability to supervise their child. [ 21 ] When the parents consume, their relation becomes conflictual and the mother is the victim of conjugal violence. X witnesses those conflicts and she is at risk to be a victim of physical abuse, for example when she is in her mother’s arm or in her amautik. [ 22 ] Regarding the measures, the Court wishes to congratulate the mother for her quick and important mobilization as soon as the DYP intervened.

She took the right decision to protect her daughter and she stayed with her all the time even if it justified a moving in another village. [ 23 ] During all the emergency placement, the mother respected the rules imposed by the DYP. [ 24 ] The Court reminds her the importance to maintain this healthy way of life for the best interest of her daughter.

It is very important for X to be maintained with her mother, but for that, the mother has to continue to ensure the safety of the child. [ 25 ] Considering the father is totality absent from the follow-up, and absent at the Court house, the Court does not consider that the father demonstrated his interest to be involved in his daughter’s life. [ 26 ] Doing so, despite the DYP’s request, the security of the child requires that she be entrusted exclusively to her mother.

The Court does not prohibit contact with the father, but this measure will give the possibility to the mother to leave the father’s house as soon as a problem occurs between them. [ 27 ] The Court trusts the mother and gives her the responsibility to ensure her daughter’s safety. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii., (

c) and (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother’s care; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES contacts between the child and the father under the supervision of the DYP as for the frequency, terms and modalities; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, personal and violence issues; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the mother’s place; [ 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 March 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: March 23, 2020