2012 QCCQ 11179, 2012 QCCQ 11179

Protection de la jeunesse — 123700 2012 QCCQ 11179 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004129-113 760-41-004128-115 DATE: March 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2005 Y , born on […], 2007 DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents of the children ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] Declarations of protection are submitted to the court concerning X, born on […], 2005 and Y, born on […], 2007. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and the development of the children are in danger due to neglect on the educational plan and a risk of physical abuse (exposure to conjugal violence), as detailed more amply in paragraph 3 of the motions. [ 3 ] Among other measures, the Petitioner recommends that the children remain with their mother with measures of aid, counselling and assistance for 1 year. [ 4 ] By consent, the Petitioner produces various documents as evidence in lieu of testimony, including the reports on the analysis of the children's social situation. [ 5 ] The admissions of the parties as to the motion are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director.

The father adds that he wishes regular contacts with his children. [ 6 ] When the initial report is made, the children are residing with their mother, her spouse Mr. C, and their son, Z (1). The mother is pregnant with another child, Y, who is born on […], 2011. The mother and Mr C form a couple since 2009 and, although they are not living together at the onset of the intervention, the exact status of their relationship remains unclear. [ 7 ] The mother is the primary caregiver. The father is not involved in his children's lives since June 2010. The parties admit that the children refer to Mr.

C as a father figure. [ 8 ] In the home, there is a lack of organization, especially for meal and bed times. The mother is little equipped to address issues on routine, discipline and educational methods, which impact the children's security and development on the short term and if not corrected, more profoundly on a long term basis. [ 9 ] The relationship between the mother and Mr. C is often contentious. Mr C is impulsive and reacts viscerally and an issue of the alcohol and drug consumption is also a factor in the conflicts.

They are unable to ascertain the negative consequences of their arguments on the children under their care, preferring to state that they take care to argue behind closed doors, or that the arguments are not of an intensity to impact the children. Notwithstanding, the evidence clearly demonstrated numerous significant incidents of physical and verbal violence between them, of which the children are witnesses.

More notably, both parties face criminal accusations following a violent argument of June 2011 in city A, which is the impetus named for their having decided to maintain separate domiciles. [ 10 ] Another issue of concern is repeated incidents of Y having marks and bruises on her body. Y is reticent to give explanations and has mentioned, on at least one occasion, Mr. C as the source of her injuries.

The mother equates the marks to roughhousing, but the recurrence of the injuries justifies particular prudence and at the very least, attention to the importance of the parental supervision. [ 11 ] As the primary caregiver, the mother is able to see as to the basic needs of her children and is a caring parent. Notwithstanding, the continued ambiguity of her conjugal relationship, Mr.

C's refusal to participate in the intervention, the lack of accountability and the other personal issues requiring resolution, affect her capacities to fully appreciate and address the children's needs. [ 12 ] The father's implication is renewed by the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection. He recognizes that his prolonged absence in the children's lives requires that contacts with the children be progressive and under supervision. These contacts must be positive and reassuring for the children.

This will require patience and understanding from the father as the children have referred to another adult as a paternal figure in his absence, and possibly harbor sentiments of abandonment. [ 13 ] The relationship between the parents was punctuated by verbal and physical violence, and drug abuse. The father declares being abstinent and to having stabilized his personal situation.

This will require evaluation and confirmation and consequently, the father's transparent cooperation with the intervention. [ 14 ] Should the father be unable or unwilling to make the rigid commitment required to re-establish and fully assume his place in his children's lives, their best interests should be dictated by their primary need for stability. [ 15 ] The measures ordered will permit that the parents receive the support necessary to correct the difficulties in their respective homes and ensure that the children have an adequate response to their needs in both environments.

The mother's primary responsibility will be to work towards clarifying her relationship and maintaining a strife-free and structured home for her children. [ 16 ] The Court determines that the security and the development of the children are compromised due to neglect on the educational plan and a risk of physical abuse. The recommendations forwarded by the Director of Youth Protection are appropriate and in their best interests. [ 17 ] For thEse reasons, the Court :

__________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Jacinthe Leroux Attorney for the mother Me Karine P.

Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 12, 2012 [ 18 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y, are in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their mother; [ 21 ] AUTORIZES the contacts between the children and their father upon mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] PERMITS that the said supervision be withdrawn upon mutual agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling and assistance to the children and their family for a period of one (1) year; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child Y attend a child-care establishment; [ 26 ] RECOMMANDS that the family collaborate with the CLSC; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures.