2012 QCCQ 15601, 2012 QCCQ 15601

Protection de la jeunesse — 123276 2012 QCCQ 15601 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NOS: 640-41-001425-112 and 640-41-001426-110 DATE: June 1, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2007 Y, born on […], 2008 MS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., Quebec, district A Petitioner and MS.

A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother and MR. B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91 Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], delegate to the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., is asking the Court to declare the security and development of X, born on […], 2007, and Y, born on […], 2008, in danger with regard to

section 38 (a) , (b) , (

c) and (

d) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father and the mother are present, represented by Me Yan Massé and Me Sarah Plamondon respectively. The children are represented by Me Angela Tommasel and Me Robert-André Adam is representing the petitioner. [ 3 ] The father admits all the allegations except that of sexual assault on X.

He also agrees with the recommendations included in the Social Report filed. [ 4 ] The mother admits all the allegations; she specifies that she is having problems, in particular, with alcohol and agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] Concerning the sexual abuse committed by the father on X, the petitioner presents the testimonies of Mr. C, the mother and the Social Worker. In defence, the father testifies. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that, in the autumn 2009, more specifically at the end of September and beginning of October, Mr.

B walked into the Adult Education and Daycare building with his oldest daughter X between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., sat with the child, laid her down, put her pants down to her knees, took off her clothes and licked her vagina. The father asked Mr. C, who was in the coffee room on the other side of a window, to come and see. The father was smiling. Mr. C was just beside and saw the father licking the private parts of the child. Shocked, he left. The incident lasted for a few seconds. Mr.

C talked about this incident to his wife, and two weeks later, to the child's mother when he met her at school. [ 7 ] Right after she was informed, the mother checked with her daughter and discussed with her husband. As he denied everything, she separated from him and went to the police to press charges. [ 8 ] The police did not investigate any further. Meanwhile, as the mother had alcohol problems and the father was still in her community, she let her two daughters visit him. After nearly a year, the father left for his own community with Y. He went to live with his mother and brother.

After a sexual incident occurred between Y and her uncle, the girl was taken back to Town A and placed in a foster home. [ 9 ] Following police investigation, the father was prohibited to be in contact with X, and the Social Services intervened.

[ 10 ] The father told that, in Town B , he left the child once with his mother to go to the Coop Store. When he came back, he noticed blood in his daughter's underwear when he accompanied her to the bathroom. He took her to the nursing station. They noticed scars but confirmed that her vagina was normal. He believed his brother to have sexually assaulted her albeit his denial.

Two weeks later, he took Y back to Town A, following the Social Worker's advice. [ 11 ] The Social Worker testifies that two sexual misconducts incidents were reported to her, one by the Daycare Centre concerning X on November 2, 2011 and another incident on January 25, 2012 in the foster family. Social Services were aware of X's situation, and further, of Y's situation, but the Social Services of Town B and Town A never managed to share information on the two children’s situation. [ 12 ] The witness, Mr.

C, made his statement concerning the sexual assault on X in May 2011, and on May 20, voluntary measures were signed by the parents concerning X's placement in a foster home while Y was back under her father’s care. On August 12, 2011, the father asked the Youth Protection to place Y in Town A for two weeks in order to get some respite but he never came back. She has remained in foster care since. [ 13 ] The mother acknowledges her alcohol problems and other personal issues.

Although she has adequate parental abilities when she is sober, her parenting skills are diminished through alcohol and drug use, resulting in a lack of supervision and food. [ 14 ] Concerning the sexual abuses on both children, the Court has evidence out of the balance of probabilities that they happened. Regarding X, although the father denies committing sexual abuse on his stepdaughter, it is proven that he did based on the credibility given to the independent witness and on the two sexual misconducts of the child afterwards. The account given by Mr. C is more plausible and more precise than the father’s.

It is also more consistent with the mother's conduct after being informed. [ 15 ] Concerning Y, she was also sexually abused while living with her father, who did not take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. Consequently, the child is at great risk of being again subjected to gestures of a sexual nature if she were to live with her father. [ 16 ] As a result, the security and development of the two children are in danger for all the motives alleged.

The parents today agree to the Director of Youth Protection's recommendations. [ 17 ] The mother must understand that the Director of Youth Protection will have to develop a long-term life project for the children if she does not seriously address her drinking and drug problems.

The father must also understand his parental obligations and develop sufficient maturity to assume them even if he is not living with the mother. [ 18 ] For the next year, the Court will accept the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection, to which measures the parents agree. [ 19 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are endangered; [ 21 ] ORDERS the placement of the two children X and Y in foster families for a period of 12 months with progressive reinsertion with the mother if her situation allows; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise all the visits and access of the parents to the children, and PROHIBITS any contact between the father and X until he has been assessed and provided with any recommended treatment, and third- party supervision is required; [ 23 ] ORDERS that Mr.

B undergo a sexual deviance assessment and a follow-up if needed; [ 24 ] ORDERS both parents to attend therapies for their personal issues; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of 18 months; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the children's rights have been wronged according to section 91 (4) of the Youth Protection Act , and RECOMMENDS an investigation by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse; [ 27 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present Court order; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, Attorney for the petitioner Me Yan Massé, Attorney for the father Me Sarah Plamondon, Attorney for the mother Me Angela Tommasel, Attorney for the children

Date of hearing: April 5, 2012