2022 QCCQ 8030, 2022 QCCQ 8030

Protection de la jeunesse — 222380 2022 QCCQ 8030 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002632-211 DATE: February 1, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...] Applicant and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on April 23, 2021, by the honourable Eric Hamel, J.C.Q. regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] At that date the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger and entrusted the child to her mother until April 22, 2022. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the child with her mother and that the placement has therefore to be prolonged. [ 4 ] The DYP argue that the father is not involved in the life of the child, that the mother and her boyfriend display alcohol problems and conjugal violence problems and that the child and her siblings were subjected to physical abuse from the mother’s boyfriend. [ 5 ] Therefore, the DYP is asking the Court to entrust the child to a foster family for one year, with a potential reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it.

Position of the parties [ 6 ] The mother is present and represented. She denied or ignored the factual allegations of the DYP and she did not agree with the proposed measures either. [ 7 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], social worker for the DYP, testified about the steps she took to reach the father before the day of the present hearing.

He was served the documents and she tried many times to reach him since then, without success. [ 8 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES having jurisdiction to proceed in the absence of the father. [ 9 ] The child is not present, but she is represented on a legal mandate. [ 10 ] The DYP filed documentary evidence, which was completed by the testimony of Ms. [Social Worker 1]. The mother testified on her behalf and Mr. C, stepfather of the child, as well. [ 11 ] The Court took knowledge of the documentary evidence complemented by the testimonial evidence.

The present decision is based on the careful analysis of that evidence. Facts

[ 12 ] For a better understanding of the context in which the present decision is rendered, the Court finds it relevant to summarize the family constellation of the child. [ 13 ] The mother had nine children with two different fathers. The four oldest children were born from the union of the mother and Mr. B. From those 4 children, 3 are still under the age of 18, including the child X, who is the youngest of the 4. Before the DYP’s latest intervention, the three children were living with their mother and with Mr.

C, with whom the mother had five other children, now aged between eight and one years old. [ 14 ] Therefore, before the intervention of the DYP, the child lived with her mother, with Mr. C, her stepfather, with her two older brothers and with her five younger maternal half-siblings. [ 15 ] The evidence of the DYP established that since the last measure, the parents did not improve their situation significantly. [ 16 ] The father is not involved in the children’s life and the mother and her boyfriend, Mr.

C, still struggle with an alcohol addiction and with conjugal violence. [ 17 ] It is also established that during the last measure, the children were subjected to violence on the part of the mother’s boyfriend and that the violence occurred while Mr. C was either sober or intoxicated. The violence towards the children is denied by Mr. C and by the mother. The Court will come back later on their testimony. [ 18 ] It is furthermore established that the mother did not always prioritize the best interest of her children during the last measure.

She did not collaborate enough with the Director on many aspect and she did not provide at all time a clean environment of living to her children; an environment exempt of alcohol and violence. Finally, it is also clear that the mother is going through a difficult time in her life right now. [ 19 ] On the educational level, the uncontested evidence shows that the mother did not react properly when confronted by the school, about the high absenteeism of her two oldest sons. [ 20 ] In support of their demand, the DYP present to the Court a long list of events involving the mother and her boyfriend, Mr. C.

The Court will summarize the most relevant ones. [ 21 ] On July 30, 2021, the police and Social services intervened with the mother and her boyfriend because they got into a fight, while intoxicated, in the presence of the child. Through her lawyer, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event. [ 22 ] On August 2, 2021, the police had to intervene again, but this time with Mr. C, the mother’s boyfriend, since he was physically abusive towards the children. According to the uncle, Mr. D, Mr. C had banged the children’s head against the wall and he was screaming at them. Following the incident, Mr.

C was asked to leave the house by the police. Again, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event. [ 23 ] The day after, the child and her siblings were found in the house, without proper supervision, while the mother and another adult were both deeply asleep and could not be awaken. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, Mr. D, the uncle who was often watching and protecting the children against the behaviour of the parents, got injured in an ATV accident on August 4, 2021, and he has been in a coma ever since. [ 25 ] That same day, a meeting was held with the mother and Mr.

C to explain why the DYP intended to entrust all the children to a foster home. [ 26 ] According to the evidence provided by the DYP, Mr. C admitted the alcohol consumption issues and stated that he was still open to receive services from social services. [ 27 ] As for the mother, she did not collaborate, she screamed at the workers and asked them to leave the house. She did not admit any of the problems that were raised by the DYP and it is only after Mr. C had left the house that she was able to calm down and provide names for a potential foster family for her children.

However, when the time came to talk about the situation of her youngest child, the mother once again cease to collaborate and the DYP workers had to call the police for assistance, in order to get the children out of the house. [ 28 ] From August 5 to August 11, 2021, the mother called the DYP’s emergency line up to seven times during the evening and the night. During those phone calls, the mother was intoxicated by alcohol and she was insulting the DYP worker.

It is also established that during those phone calls, the mother was disrespectful with the workers that tried to help her. [ 29 ] Furthermore, according to what Mr. C told the DYP, the mother consumed alcohol every day during that period of time. [ 30 ] On August 12, 2021, the DYP spoke with the mother again. During that conversation, she was explained the steps she had to take and the changes she had to make, for her children to be returned under her care. Of course, alcohol consumption was a central element of that conversation. However, that same night, the police intervened with the mother and Mr.

C because of their state of intoxication and because of conjugal violence between them. [ 31 ] On August 20, 2021, the mother once again called the emergency line of the DYP, while intoxicated and stated that she did not want any help from them. [ 32 ] On September 9, 2021, the mother contacted the DYP office in the middle of the afternoon. During that call, while highly intoxicated, she threaten to beat up the foster family that was taking care of two of the child younger siblings.

Later on that day, when the DYP worker went to the foster home to pick up the children, the foster family informed them that the mother, who was still clearly

intoxicated, had called many times during the evening to harass them. [ 33 ] Later that same day, the mother expressed suicidal thoughts and she was brought to the hospital by a Social services worker, with the help of the police. During the risk assessment evaluation, the mother admitted that she will drink all night again after being released from the hospital. [ 34 ] In

summary, the evidence presented to the Court established a long list of events involving the mother, being intoxicated and having inappropriate behaviours. Those events, combined with the rest of the evidence, demonstrate that the mother is still struggling with an alcohol addiction, and with other personal issues. Furthermore, she did not collaborate with the DYP, refused the help that was offered to her and she is not currently taking much steps to improve her situation. [ 35 ] The mother does not admit her issues and therefore, she does not want to work on them.

She had suicidal thoughts and she seems to have difficulty to manage her emotions and her anger. [ 36 ] The mother testified at the hearing. [ 37 ] She first admitted, when it was suggested to her, that she could be suffering from a depression.

That being said, she could not elaborate on the subject and she did not think that she needs to see a psychologist. [ 38 ] She doesn’t know how she could improve her situation and when she was asked to comment about her alcohol consumption, her only answer was that “it is better”. [ 39 ] Furthermore, apart from generally denying the conjugal violence, she remains quite vague on that subject. [ 40 ] When her lawyer asked her what kind of help she would need to improve her situation, she answered that she did not really know. [ 41 ] In cross-examination, she confirmed that she recently told the DYP worker that she agreed with the measures proposed for the children, but she could not explain why she changed her mind at the hearing. [ 42 ] The mother also said that she does not believe her children when they say that they are victim of violence from Mr.

C. [ 43 ] In

summary, the testimony of the mother was very limited, and mostly vague on many subjects. Clearly, such a testimony do not contradict the evidence presented by the DYP in support of their demand and to justify the measures that they are proposing. [ 44 ] Concerning the mother’s boyfriend and father of the youngest siblings of the child, Mr. C, his collaboration was qualified as good and he is involved in the life of his children, including X and her two older brothers that are not his.

He made himself available for meetings, ask for visits with the children and he was present and collaborated during those visits. [ 45 ] Furthermore, the DYP have been informed that the father started a follow-up for people struggling with an addiction. Contrarily to the mother, Mr. C, who is identified as the person who have been violent with the children, have been taking concrete steps to improve his situation and to maintain a good bond with the children. [ 46 ] That being said, even if Mr.

C recognized certain issues and took steps to improve the situation, it is still worrisome that he denies any form of violence toward the children. [ 47 ] To illustrate the fragility of Mr. C recent sobriety, the Court wish to point out that since about a month ago, alcohol is no longer sold in the village. When Mr. C was asked, in cross-examination, what he will do to maintain his sobriety when alcohol will become available again for purchase, he answered that “he will do his best and try to visit friends that hopefully are going to be sober”.

Violence on the children [ 48 ] On the question of the allegations of violence toward the children, the Court finds the evidence presented by the DYP quite convincing. [ 49 ] The Court will not review in details every gestures of violence established in the evidence, nor the particular specific circumstances and elements of confirmation that proves that those events took place. [ 50 ] But the DYP have clearly proven that on numerous occasions, Mr. C was violent toward the children.

Since the family is composed of children of different ages, all of them, except maybe the three youngest, have either been victim of violence or witness such violence on their siblings. Furthermore, the testimony of the children that were old enough to provide one, were also collected by specialized investigators from the Sureté du Québec, during non-suggestive interviews. X herself disclosed having been slapped very hard by Mr. C “upstairs, near the stairs”. She also disclosed that she witnessed Mr.

C hitting one of her older brother. [ 51 ] The Court also wish to point out that X expressed that she was afraid to go back home and that according to her perception, the mother was aware of the physical abuse done by Mr. C. She added that her mother was aware of the situation and that she sometimes protected the children from that type of violence. [ 52 ] Consequently, even if Mr. C offers a general denial of those numerous gestures of violence toward the children, the Court concludes, from all the evidence, that the children were indeed subject to physical abuse as it is alleged by the DYP.

Analysis [ 53 ] X was entrusted to Ms. D at the beginning of September 2021. At one point, the child came back to live at the mother’s place without the DYP’s consent or knowledge.

[ 54 ] Following that event, the DYP changed the foster family for X and entrusted her to the child’s parental aunt, Ms. E. The Court was informed that X is pleased with that change. [ 55 ] From a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of X is currently endangered by the behaviour of the mother and of Mr. C. [ 56 ] Mr. C have recognized some of his issues and took steps to address them.

This mobilization is still recent and time will tell us if he is able to maintain his sobriety and to change his life for the better. [ 57 ] As for the mother, she will first need to recognize her issues before being able to start addressing them. [ 58 ] The Court recognized that the mother loves her children very much and hope that she will take the necessary steps, rapidly, to solve her alcohol addiction and her other personal issues. [ 59 ] If she do so, a gradual integration with her will be possible in the future. But until then, X needs a stable environment, exempt of violence and alcohol.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 60 ] GRANTS the application; [ 61 ] REVISES the decision rendered on April 23, 2021; [ 62 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger regarding

section 38 e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 63 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year; [ 64 ] AUTHORIZES the gradual reintegration of the child into the mother’s care if the situation allows it; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents report periodically to the Director 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 or development of the child are in danger; [ 66 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 67 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 68 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother receive specific health care and health services, including psychological assessment; [ 69 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and the child’s parents be determined by the Director with regards to the terms, frequency, and degree of supervision; [ 70 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family for a period of one year; [ 71 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 72 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 73 ] THE WHOLE for one year .

Signed on March 28, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the Applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Me Angèle Tommasel Me Angèle Tommasel, avocate Counsel for the mother B Personally Father

Date of hearing: February 1, 2022