2017 QCCQ 18241, 2017 QCCQ 18241

Protection de la jeunesse — 178481 2017 QCCQ 18241 JB5047 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001074-178 455-41-001075-175 DATE : September 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2016 Y Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at [...] ; Applicant -and- A , residing and domiciled at [...] ; -and- B , residing and domiciled at [...] ; Children’s 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.). introduction [ 1 ] Y and X are very young vulnerable children.

Their mother has been struggling with personal issues and with her denial of being a victim of conjugal violence. [ 2 ] After trying and failing to reside at a mother-children resource, the mother was offered by The Director of Youth Protection (hereafter named « Director ») to be entrusted the care of her children under the condition that she resides at the maternal grandparents’ home. [ 3 ] The mother is in agreement with this plan and wishes to undertake steps to address her personal issues. [ 4 ] The father is present in court and is also in agreement with the Director’s recommendations including that he undergoes a follow-up for anger management. [ 5 ] The Director requests that the Court declare the security and development of the children still endangered and that a social follow up be ordered for a period of six months with various other measures.

Question [ 6 ] Are the recommendations corresponding to the children’s needs and do they respect their rights? Context and Analysis [ 7 ] The hearing regarding the application for a declaration of compromission (section 38 YPA) was held on April 19, 2017.

The Court took the decision under advisement. [ 8 ] Judge Michel Durand, who heard the case, maintained the provisional measures that were rendered on March 28, 2017 entrusting the children to their mother as long as she remained at the woman shelter Horizon pour Elle. [ 9 ] On May 10 th , the Court was seized in order to reopen the inquiry to inform the Court that the parents were not respecting the Court’s interim order.

The Court heard the evidence to the effect that the conditions of supervised visits had not been respected (mother had left the shelter and allowed unsupervised visits with the father) and maintained the provisional measures and as continued to take the final decision under advisement. [ 10 ] On June 15, 2017, Judge Durand rendered his written decision by which the children were entrusted to their mother under the condition that she resides in a mother-children resource and that if the mother should leave or was expelled, that the children be entrusted to a foster home. [ 11 ] Before the judgment was rendered, the mother had already left the shelter.

On June 5 th , there was a flood at the shelter and the mother was offered help to find a place to stay which she refused. [ 12 ] It was only on July 10 th that the Director was informed of this as the shelter did not notify the Director, nor had the parents. [ 13 ] When reached by phone, the mother sated she was living in City A and that the father was in the [Country A], refusing at first to provide with her new address. [ 14 ] The children were placed in a foster home on July 12 th . [ 15 ] On July 26 th , the mother presented an application to have the children entrusted to her care, under the condition that she resides at her parents’ home.

The undersigned ordered that Director assess this plan and a further hearing was held on August 1 st . [ 16 ] The assessment revealed ongoing issues between the mother and the grandparents and some element of the mother’s past regarding her mental health and the Director requested more time to evaluate the situation. [ 17 ] The Director revealed that the mother had a difficult relationship with her father whom she describes as being very controlling. She rebelled. When a teenager she has also had symptoms of anorexia and she cut herself. She believes suffering from social anxiety but never had any diagnosis.

On August 23 rd , she went to the hospital, suffering from an anxiety attack and was prescribed anti-depressants. She is to make another appointment with her family doctor to assess her mental health condition. [ 18 ] And so the Court ordered that the children remain entrusted to a foster home, that the grandparents supervise the visits between the mother and children at their home and the visits are encouraged. The Court took note that the mother would consult her family doctor and seek mental health follow-up and that the Director would explore resources for children within the family.

The whole until September 6, 2017. [ 19 ] During that period of time, meetings occurred during which the mother finally admitted to her family and to the Director that the father had been violent with her, verbally and physically even in the children’s presence. [ 20 ] Another meeting was also held during which the mother confronted the father who also admitted being violent with Y, slapping him in the face twice with an open palm and before, on the buttocks and on the face.

In the event that led to the Director’s involvement, the father said he overreacted to the fact that Y had defecated in his bedroom and smeared his feces. He realized that Y was frightened and mentions that he felt terrible about it. [ 21 ] The father explained that he did not admit to this before due to his worries about not being able to cross the border with a criminal record and also for the shame of it. He states he is now ready to face whatever consequences and acknowledges that he needs to learn to control his anger. [ 22 ] These admissions lead to a positive evolution of the situation.

The father is now ready to address his anger management issues and the mother is taking steps to participate in counselling for conjugal violence and to address her emotional and mental health. [ 23 ] Also, the paternal grandparents and the mother are working out their issues and are in better terms. [ 24 ] The visits with the father have been difficult to arrange due to his work schedule. A visit cancelled on August 10 th where Y showed great disappointment in not seeing his parents led the Director to ask the father to request future visits when he would be certain to be able to leave work on time.

Although the father agreed to this, he did not request any further visits. [ 25 ] The Director is now requesting that the contacts between the father and the children be supervised. The supervision could be lifted provided that the father take concrete steps to receive help for his anger management and provide proof of it; give consent for the Director to receive information on this matter and that he attends visit regularly. After that, the visits could occur at the grandparents’ home and be supervised by them if they agree to do so.

[ 26 ] The Director is exploring other family members as a plan B to care for the children if this arrangement was not to work out or if it had to be for a longer period. [ 27 ] Y is developing well. Although he does exhibit some behaviours indicating that he is affected by the conjugal violence to which he was exposed. He also mentions being afraid of daddy, placing his hands in front of his face. [ 28 ] X is also doing well. She demonstrates attachment behaviour towards her mother. [ 29 ] The children need a stable and safe environment to continue to develop to their full potential.

The grandparents offer such an environment and are available to provide support to the mother. [ 30 ] The parents must actualize their recent undertakings to engage in follow ups regarding their respective personal issues. [ 31 ] Considering these recent developments, the Court will allow for the children to remain with their mother at the home of their grandparents and will authorize the father to visit the children as per the frequency and modalities determined by the Director.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the mother’s application for revision; DECLARES the security and the development of the children X and Y are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on June 15, 2017; ENTRUSTS the children X and Y to their mother excluding their father and under the condition that the mother resides with the maternal grandparents; ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the children X and Y and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including the degree of supervision; AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision, according to the evolution of the situation; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by this Court deemed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children X and Y is in danger; TAKES NOTICE that the grandparents are leaving for vacations in January for a period of one month, that if the Director of Youth Protection deems so appropriate the mother will be left alone with the children and if not, that the Director of Youth Protection will see to it that there is some supervision by a third party; RECOMMENDS that the father undergo a follow-up for anger management; RECOMMENDS that the mother continue her follow-up with Horizon pour Elles in relation to domestic violence and that she receives medical services for her mental health and that she follows the recommendations in this regard; ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Marie-Pier Trépanier Counsel for the DYP M e René Sévigny Counsel for the children M e Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the mother Date of judgment : December 8, 2017 Exhibits deposited : D-8