2016 QCCQ 4236, 2016 QCCQ 4236

Protection de la jeunesse — 161746 2016 QCCQ 4236 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030319-156; 525-41-030318-158 DATE : January 22, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X, born on […], 2011 Y, born on […], 2015 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father of X Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on January 22 nd , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of two motions alleging that the security and development of the children are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment and risk of physical abuse. The Director is asking that both children be entrusted to their mother, at the exclusion of Mr. B, father of the oldest girl.

The Director is also asking for accessory measures for a period of one year. [ 3 ] On behalf of the mother, her attorney makes a general admission on all the facts alleged in support of the motions. The mother is in full agreement with the recommendations made by the Director. [ 4 ] Mr. B, father of the oldest child, admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion concerning his daughter. He is in full agreement with the recommendations of the Director.

He expresses clearly his desire not to be in contact with his daughter. [ 5 ] Counsel for children makes no admissions but agrees with the recommendations of the Director. CONTEXT

[ 6 ] Late August 2015, the Director receives two signalements pertaining to conjugal violence opposing the mother and Mr. B. [ 7 ] The evaluation of the signalements reveals that the mother and Mr. B have had longstanding issues of conjugal violence.

They both admit to their conflictual relationship and that on August 21 st 2015, a physical altercation occurred between them. [ 8 ] The two adults also acknowledge that the children have been exposed to their conflicts. [ 9 ] Since the involvement of the Director, the mother has offered her collaboration and seems to understand the importance to protect her children from any conflictual relationship she may have. She therefore accepts the services offered by the Director and agrees with the recommendations suggested. [ 10 ] As to Mr.

B, father of the oldest daughter, he claims to have no intention to be involved with his daughter and therefore is not willing to collaborate with the Director. [ 11 ] The Court invites the father to reconsider his position. It is well understood that he wishes no longer to have a relationship with the mother of his daughter. That being said, he is invited to maintain contact with his daughter and to assume his responsibilities and obligations other than by simply providing money to the mother.

It is certainly in the best interest of the child that her two parents remain involved with her and assume, fully, their responsibilities. [ 12 ] The Director has established that both children were exposed to the conflicts of the mother and Mr. B and that the children were at risk to be hurt during these conflicts. [ 13 ] The Court comes to the conclusion that the recommendations made by the Director meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: CONCERNING X [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS X to the care of her mother, at the exclusion of Mr. B; [ 16 ] SUSPENDS all contacts between X and Mr. B until Mr.

B meet the worker involved on at least three (3) occasions to establish his stability and renew his commitment to his daughter; [ 17 ] If contacts are to take place, the Court ASKS the Director of Youth Protection to favour these contacts between X and her father and to determine the frequency, modality and duration of contacts, supervision included if need be; [ 18 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS to both parents to seek the support they may need in order to address their personal issues; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her parents; [ 21 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of one (1) year.

CONCERNING Y [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are compromised; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS Y to the care of her mother, at the exclusion of Mr. B; [ 24 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and Mr.

B; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek the support she may need in order to address her personal issues; [ 27 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of one (1) year; AND [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

_________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Olivia Dugré Attorney for the children Date of hearing : January 22 nd , 2016