2019 QCCQ 19538, 2019 QCCQ 19538

Protection de la jeunesse — 197972 2019 QCCQ 19538 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34681-189 Date: September 13, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , an eleven month-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect, psychological ill-treatment and serious risk of physical abuse to which he is exposed. [ 2 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated November 6, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. on September 10, 2018, the Honorable Judge Taya Di Pietro declared that the child’s sibling Y’s security and development were deemed endangered due to the child being the victim of bodily injury by the mother and due to psychological ill-treatment as it appears more fully from the proces-verbal; 3.2. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of Mr.

B and Ms. A, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) Mr. B and Ms. A have at times a conflictual relationship;

b) they regularly argue in the child’s presence;

c) at times those arguments escalate into physical violence;

d) on August 23, 2018, an argument between Mr. B and Ms. A (sic) escalated into physical violence and police intervention was needed;

e) following said incident, both Mr. B and Ms. A were arrested;

f) Ms. A has pending charges for assault with a weapon and she has conditions of no contact with Mr. B;

g) Mr. B and Ms. A minimize said incidents of violence and their impact on the children; 3.3. the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury by Mr. B and Ms. A in that they can behave in an erratic, aggressive and unstable way with each other, even when the children are present;

3.4. there is a serious risk that Mr. B and Ms.

A do not meet the child’s basic needs in that they can behave in an erratic, aggressive and unstable way with each other, even when the children are present (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to his mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Ameur, denied most of the allegations in the application, opposed the measures and requested that the file be closed. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, also denied most of the allegations in the application and opposed the measures. [ 7 ] Me Harvey, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] In

summary, X is the youngest of the parents’ two children. He has an older half-brother who was placed in a group home in May 2018. On November 20, 2018, his security and development were declared to be endangered based on the psychological ill- treatment and physical abuse to which he was exposed.

He remains in placement. [ 9 ] X’s situation was only signalled several months later, in August 2018 when police were called to the family home following an argument between his parents. [ 10 ] The parties objected to the filing of the police report as it was incomplete and the officers were not available for cross examination.

The police report is therefore disregarded. [ 11 ] However, interviews with the older children in the family confirm that the parents were arguing, there was loud yelling and items were thrown. [ 12 ] Although the gravity of the incident is undeniable, there is no evidence of any incident of conjugal violence after August 2018, or any evidence of conflict between the parents since that time. The couple is divorced, and no longer lives together. [ 13 ] As indicated in the Court Report : There have been no reported instances of conjugal violence and no concerns at the moment between Mr. B and Ms.

A, since the event that led to the DYP’s initial involvement at the end of August 2018. [1] [ 14 ] In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the child’s basic needs are not being met: X is a four-month year (sic) old baby, who appears to be healthy and is on course to be achieving his age-appropriate and developmental milestones. [2] and further: The caseworker presented at the home on the evening of February 8 th . Ms. A was present at home with X, [his brother] and [his half- sister]. The children appeared well and in good health.

The home also appeared to be in a clean and appropriate condition. [3] [ 15 ] Moreover, the mother appears to be warm and attentive to her son: Ms.

A was holding X and was observed kissing him affectionately. [4] [ 16 ] Although serious concerns were raised regarding the child’s older brother as well as his half-brother and the mother’s inadequate response to their behavioral challenges, those concerns are not sufficient to establish a serious risk to the child, in light of the evidence as a whole. [ 17 ] Finally concerns were also raised regarding the child’s exposure to conflict and tension in the home as a result of his half- brother’s behavioral problems. [ 18 ] However, the half-brother is in placement and services with which the mother is collaborating are in place to effectively manage the situation. [ 19 ] In fact, according to the testimony of the educator who was present when the half-brother became violent during a weekend visit in May 2019, the mother responded appropriately by removing the other children from the situation and having them call for help. [ 20 ] For all these reasons, despite the child’s great vulnerability due to his young age, given that there is no evidence of ongoing conflict between the parents and that there are no reported incidents of conjugal violence since August 2018, and given that the mother reacted appropriately when the adolescent’s sibling became aggressive, that he is in placement and that social services are following the family regarding his issues, the Court concludes that the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the child’s situation is endangered under any of the alleged grounds of the Youth Protection Act .

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] DISMISSES the application.

Signed on September 13, 2019 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the child Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: February 28 and July 16, 2019. TD/vl