2016 QCCQ 18894, 2016 QCCQ 18894

Protection de la jeunesse — 169716 2016 QCCQ 18894 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 29794-153 Date: October 31, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- D , the mother -and- E , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 31, 2016, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a seven year-old child, based on a serious risk of being subjected to sexual abuse. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the amended motion dated October 8, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, there is a longstanding history of inappropriate sexualized behaviours amongst the siblings within the home environment; 3.2. the family was followed by the Director of Youth Protection from 2007 to 2011, and subject to a court order from 2010 to 2011 due to sexual abuse of three of the child’s siblings by their older brother Y, as it appears from the judgment dated June 17, 2010, rendered by the Honourable Taya Di Pietro and filed as Exhibit D-1; 3.3. the file was closed in 2011 as the parents appeared to have taken appropriate steps to protect the children from further abuse; 3.4. on May 28, 2015, a signalement was received concerning the child; 3.5. the child runs a serious risk of being subjected to gestures of a sexual nature, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child’s sister reports that she has been sexually abused by her 19 year old brother Z (…) 4 years ago with two (2) new incidents since , and that he lives in the home;

b) both parents minimize the abuse from Z;

c) the family has received specialized counselling from the Centre Marie Vincent in the past;

d) despite the support, intra-familial sexual abuse is still occurring (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The hearing began before the undersigned on November 18, 2015. The Director recommended interim measures, namely Z’s

exclusion from the family residence, pending the results of evaluations ordered under the Youth Criminal Justice Act . [ 5 ] The parents, then assisted by Me Brown, admitted most of the alleged facts, acknowledged the sexual abuse and agreed to the temporary exclusion of their son Z from the family home.

However, they asked that he be allowed to join the family for weekly dinners and holidays. [ 6 ] Me Plourde, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but also approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] The hearing was postponed on March 14, 2016 and on April 20, 2016, continued on June 30, 2016 and concluded on October 31, 2016. [ 8 ] At the final hearing, the Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to his parents with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional correctives measures, for a period of eight months. [ 9 ] The parents, who then chose to continue without the assistance of legal counsel, consented to all the proposed measures and expressed their satisfaction with the services that were finally being offered to the family.

They also noted the positive impact of the new worker’s involvement with the family. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-10 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated September 8, 2015; D-3: Judgment rendered by Honourable Taya di Pietro, dated June 17, 2010; D-4: Addendum to Court Report, written by [Social Worker 2], dated November 12, 2015; D-5: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 3], no dated; D-6: Young Offenders Services, Pre-Sentence Report, written by [Social Worker 4], dated May 18, 2016; D-7: Expertise psychiatrique , prédécisionnelle , written by Dr.

Benoit Dassylva, dated March 17, 2016; D-8: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 3], dated June 21, 2016; D-9: Criminal Sentence of Z; D-10: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated October 24, 2016. [ 11 ] In

summary, the longstanding history of inappropriate sexual behavior amongst the older siblings in the family was acknowledged and the parents are actively collaborating to ensure that services and safeguards are effectively put into place. [ 12 ] The child’s brother Z acknowledged the sexual abuse regarding their sister A and pled guilty to sexual assault on October 9, 2015.

The Young Offenders Services Pre-Sentence Report indicates that the risk of re-offending appears low given the surrounding circumstances: According to the psycho-sexual report, a concern was the fact that Z was a victim of sexual touching and that the family had a certain amount of transgression in limits. Also, the religious practice does not allow for sexual expression and therefore he was repressed in this area. The hypothesis that came out was that during Z’s adolescence, where sexual urges were at their strongest, he chose his victim according to accessibility.

However, it was maintained that Z presents a low risk to recidivate in both the medium and long term . In his favour is the fact that he does not have any judicial antecedents, no consumption issues, no history of impulsivity, and a strong social support system . It is recommended that therapy would be helpful in working on his level of emotions or sexuality when entering an intimate relationship . At the present time it is not felt that custody under YCJA is necessary to ensure protection of society.

However, In order for society to be best protected from further incidents of harm by Z, he will need to address his sexual urges and to deal with them in a manner that is socially accepted and also acceptable to his religious upbringing and beliefs [2] (reproduced with errors and/or omissions) (emphasis added). [ 13 ] He was sentenced and ordered to perform eighty hours of community service and placed on probation for a period of twelve months.

He engaged in therapy and participated regularly. [ 14 ] As for the child, he is participating in the R.A.B.B.I.T. program, an educational, age-appropriate program, “ which is geared towards setting and respecting appropriate space and physical boundaries” [3] . [ 15 ] Although the child is receiving services to help him to better protect himself and prevent any incident of abuse, the parents must, of course, remain very vigilant to avoid any recurrence of sexual abuse amongst their children in the future. [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT:

[ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under

section 38 d) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child remain in the care of his parents; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection prior to contacts between their older children A, Y, Z and the younger siblings (B, C and

X) and ensure that a safety plan is put in place; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that X continues to participate in the R.A.B.B.I.T. program; [ 22 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents and Director of Youth Protection will engage in a consultation and educational process with the involvement of a credible religious community professional; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE for a period of eight months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Guylaine Plourde Attorney for the child Hearing dates: November 18, 2015, June 30 and October 31, 2016 TD/vl