2016 QCCQ 9899, 2016 QCCQ 9899

Protection de la jeunesse — 164225 2016 QCCQ 9899 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N° : 555-41-000094-166 555-41-000095-163 DATE : 30 juin 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LA DIRECTRICE DE LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE A Demanderesse et X Y Enfants et A B En qualité de parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT (Art. 38 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ) ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents. Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J.). [ 1 ] Invoquant une situation d’abus physiques résultant de méthodes éducatives déraisonnables, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse demande au Tribunal de déclarer compromis la sécurité et le développement de X, âgé de 7 ans, et de Y, âgé de 9 ans. À

titre de mesures, elle recommande de maintenir les enfants dans leur milieu familial et d’ordonner un suivi social pour une période de six mois. [ 2 ] Les parents, ainsi que les enfants, assistent à l’audience. La mère admet les faits allégués à la demande et elle consent aux mesures suggérées.

Il en est de même du procureur des enfants. [ 3 ] Quant au père, sa procureure indique au Tribunal que ce dernier n’a aucune défense à offrir et qu’il consent aux recommandations. [ 4 ] De consentement, la procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse dépose le rapport de l'intervenante afin de valoir témoignage. [ 5 ] Il ressort de la preuve prépondérante que les enfants ont été soumis à des méthodes disciplinaires inappropriées : ils reçoivent des tapes et sont frappés, par leur père, avec des objets, notamment un cintre ou une ceinture. Or, selon l’article 38

c) de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse , l’utilisation de méthodes éducatives déraisonnables constitue de l’abus physiques et met en danger la sécurité et le développement des enfants. [ 6 ] Par ailleurs, depuis le début des procédures, les contacts supervisés entre les enfants et leur père se déroulent bien. Ces derniers expriment le désir que leur père revienne à la maison. [ 7 ] De plus, le père a complété un programme en gestion des émotions : il a bien participé.

Quant à la mère, elle doit recevoir des services du CLSC et suivre elle aussi un programme en gestion des émotions. [ 8 ] Dans ce contexte, il est dans l’intérêt des enfants que la situation familiale se normalise et que la famille soit de nouveau réunie. Toutefois, malgré l’amélioration de la situation, celle-ci demeure fragile et il est essentiel de poursuivre le suivi social pendant six mois.

[ 9 ] Dans ces circonstances, le Tribunal n'a aucune hésitation à déclarer la sécurité et le développement des enfants compromis et à faire droit aux mesures de protection suggérées qui, selon la preuve, sont appropriées à leurs besoins. [ 10 ] La demande est fondée; elle est dans l’intérêt des enfants et respecte leurs droits. [ 11 ] THEREFORE THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are compromised for the motives alleged in the said motion; [ 14 ] ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to their family; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of six months; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that X receive the care and services required by his situation (medical evaluation for TDAH; child victim of physical abuse, school); [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that Y receive the care and services required by his situation (child victim of physical abuse, school); [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the intervention plan put in place with the Director of Youth Protection worker; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that Mrs A participate and complete with success anger management class (CLSC, A); [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a parenting education program (CLSC, DYP) and follow the recommendations of the professionals; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q.

M e Ariane Beaulieu Procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse M e Vendelin Weber Procureur des enfants M e Karine Dutilly Procureure de la mère M e Manon Guitard Procureure du père Dates d’audience : 30 juin 2016; 23 mars 2016 Protection de la jeunesse — 164225 2016 QCCQ 9899 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Division Nos. 555-41-000094-166 555-41-000095-163 DATE: June 30, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION FOR A Petitioner

and X Y Children and A B In their capacity as parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [1] Invoking a situation of physical abuse resulting from unreasonable methods of upbringing, the Director of Youth Protection is asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X (7 years old) and Y (9 years old) are in danger. As measures, she recommends that the children be kept in their family environment and that social follow-up be ordered for six months. [2] The parents and the children attended the hearing.

The mother admitted the facts alleged in the motion and consented to the measures sought. The children’s attorney did the same. [3] The father’s attorney told the Court that her client had no defence to present and that he consented to the recommendations. [4] With consent, the attorney for the Director of Youth Protection filed the caseworker’s report to serve as testimony. [5] The preponderant evidence shows that the children were subjected to inappropriate methods of upbringing: their father slapped them and hit them with objects, in particular, a clothes hanger and a belt. Under

section 38(

c) of the Youth Protection Act , the use of unreasonable methods of upbringing constitutes physical abuse and endangers the children’s security and development. [6] Moreover, since the beginning of the proceedings, supervised contact between the children and their father has been going well. The children said they want their father to return home. [7] In addition, the father has completed an emotion management program. His participation in the program was good. As for the mother, she is to receive services from the CLSC and take

part in an emotion management program. [8] In the circumstances, it is in the children’s interest that the family situation become normal and that the family be reunited.

However, although the situation has improved, it remains fragile and social follow-up must continue for six months. [9] In the circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in declaring that the children’s security and development are in danger and in allowing the recommended protective measures, which, according to the evidence, are suited to the children’s needs. [10] The motion is founded; it is in the children’s interest and in keeping with their rights. [The following passage appears in English in the original French-language judgment.] [11] THEREFORE THE COURT: [12] GRANTS the motion; [13] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are compromised for the motives alleged in the said motion; [14] ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to their family; [15] ORDERS that the person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of six months; [16] RECOMMENDS that X receive the care and services required by his situation (medical evaluation for TDAH; child victim of physical abuse, school); [17] RECOMMENDS that Y receive the care and services required by his situation (child victim of physical abuse, school);

[18] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the intervention plan put in place with the Director of Youth Protection worker; [19] RECOMMENDS that Mrs A participate and complete with success anger management class (CLSC, A); [20] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a parenting education program (CLSC, DYP) and follow the recommendations of the professionals; [21] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. Mtre.

Ariane Beaulieu Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Vendelin Weber Counsel for the children Mtre. Karine Dutilly Counsel for the mother Mtre. Manon Guitard Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: June 30, 2016; March 23, 2016