2021 QCCQ 14659, 2021 QCCQ 14659

Protection de la jeunesse — 218242 2021 QCCQ 14659 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 36989-200 Date: September 10, 2021 Corrected October 19, 2021 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.). The Court reaffirms the judgment rendered September 10, 2021, with correction to paragraph 6. [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 10, 2021, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] 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 , a two year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect and psychological ill-treatment to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated June 3, 2020 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, there is a Superior Court order in the situation of Y [the child’s half-sister] that gives shared custody of the child to both parents; 3.2. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of her parents that could cause her harm and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) in august 2019, Y witnessed Mr. B physically assaulting the mother;

b) in September 2019, the mother called the police for an incident of conjugal violence in the family home;

c) it was reported at that time that Mr. B tried to strangle the mother;

d) Mr. B grabbed a knife in the kitchen and threatened the mother;

e) Mr. B has criminal conditions not to be in contact with the mother;

f) on March 18, 2020, the police were called to the home by Y regarding an incident of conjugal violence between the mother and Mr. B;

g) Mr. B slept-over in the family home even with his criminal conditions;

h) Mr. B accused Y of stealing his marijuana;

i) Mr. B was physically violent with the mother before leaving the home;

j) on April 17, 2020, an agreement on voluntary measures was signed by all parties;

k) the parents were in agreement for the visits between the father and X to be organized by agreement between the parties, with the help of the paternal grand-father for the exchanges;

l) there are concerns regarding Mr. B’s drug consumption;

m) in April 2020, Y disclosed to her father that she consumed marijuana with her mother on multiple occasions;

n) on May 29, 2020, the delegate was informed that Y was not home for the past week because of an argument with the mother;

o) on June 1st, 2020, Y showed the delegate a video were the mother visits Mr. B with X;

p) the mother and Mr. B are not collaborative with the Director of Youth Protection and refuse to be transparent;

q) there are concerns that the mother and Mr. B are maintaining a close relationship and see each other regularly with X present;

r) the mother and Mr. B minimize the conjugal violence (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] On June 4, 2020, provisional measures were ordered and the child was entrusted to the mother, at the exclusion of the father, with the agreement of both parents. [ 5 ] Contacts between the child and his father were ordered to occur minimally twice a week and to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary. [ 6 ] However, the parents failed to respect the order and the Court was seized on November 30, 20 20 to have the child entrusted to foster care.

An alternate resource was suggested and approved so that the child was then entrusted to Ms. C and Mr. D. [ 7 ] The hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on February 4, 2021. [ 8 ] The Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to Ms. C and Mr.

D for an interim period of four months, and that the mother participate in a parental capacity assessment. [ 9 ] Both parents admitted the situation of endangerment and agreed to the recommended interim measures. [ 10 ] The interim entrustment was then extended on June 8, 2021 with the parents’ agreement as their situations remained precarious. [ 11 ] The mother was the victim of a violent domestic assault: On March 8, 2021, Ms. A informed the undersigned that the police were contacted the day prior, after having been confined to her home and physically assaulted by Mr. E over the weekend. Ms.

A was left with visible injuries (bruises on face, neck and body, and a fractured wrist) and a concussion as result. [2] [ 12 ] She clearly needed time and services to recover and also to gain greater awareness and insight regarding the trauma she experienced and the impact of her choices on her children [3] . [ 13 ] As for the father, his visits with his son were increased, including overnight visits, but concerns remained regarding his girlfriend’s preoccupations about having the child in their care, as well as the father’s emotional preparedness to assume full custody of his son. [ 14 ] The hearing was finally continued and completed on September 10, 2021. [ 15 ] The Director then recommended that the child remain entrusted to the care of Ms.

C and Mr. D until December 17, 2021, with a reintegration to his father’s care beginning immediately, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 16 ] The mother, assisted by Me Morin, admitted all the facts alleged in support of the application and consented to all the proposed measures, except regarding the determination her contacts with her son.

More specifically, she asked that overnight visits be ordered every second weekend. [ 17 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the allegations and consented to the proposed measures. [ 18 ] Me Bissonnette, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 19 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-12 as evidence: D-1: Copy of the child’s Birth Certificate; D-2: En liasse, Police Report incident No [...], dated September 20, 2019 and Police Report incident No [...], dated August 2, 2019 (filed under

section 292 C.C.P.);

D-3: Agreement on Voluntary Measures, signed on April 17, 2020; D-4: Orientation Report, signed by [Social Worker 2] and [Social Worker 3], dated April 16, 2020; D-5: 38 Court Report (subsequent to Voluntary Measures), signed by [Social Worker 4], dated July 9, 2020; D-6: Addendum, signed by [Social Worker 5], dated October 9, 2020; D-7: Addendum, signed by [Social Worker 6], dated January 27, 2021; D-8: Evaluation of Signalement, signed by [Social Worker 6], dated January 22, 2021; D-9: “Narratif du précis des faits’’ event No [...] (filed under

section 292 C.C.P.); D-10: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 6], dated June 1, 2021; D-11: Addendum II, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 31, 2021; D-12: Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother, prepared by [Social Worker 7], dated July 5, 2021, including Curriculum Vitae, en liasse (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.). [ 20 ] In

summary, the parents admit the grounds of endangerment that led to their son’s placement. [ 21 ] Since the Director of Youth Protection’s involvement, the father has made significant changes and has consistently demonstrated his willingness to correct the situation and have his son returned to his care. [ 22 ] As summarized in the final Addendum: In terms of his personal situation, it appears that at present, Mr. B is more aware of his emotions and has learned to better control his temper. He continues to struggle with empathy and understanding the impact of his actions on others. Mr.

B is aware that this is something that he needs to work on and is committed to doing so. In terms of substance use, there have been no concerns that Mr. B is under the influence of any illicit substances when caring for his son. The last random drug test was on July 8 th 2021 and the results were negative for all substances. At this time, it is clear that Mr. B has completed all required services requested by the DYP and has continued to acknowledge his shortcoming and is committed to working on them.

He has continued to have positive unsupervised contact with his son and this has been increasing steadily over time without any concern. Mr. B has not been using illicit substances in the presence of his son and random alcohol/drug testing will continue to monitor this progress. At this time, Mr. B remains collaborative with all social follow up and appears to have his son’s best interests at heart.

As such, the DYP is supporting an entrustment to his care at this time. [4] [ 23 ] As for the mother, although she has an evident close bond with her son and she is consistently loving and affectionate during her contacts with him, her parental capacity assessment clearly illustrates that serious challenges remain: Youth protection has been identified as a primary stressor. Her lack of follow through with resources (i.e., CLSC) raises concerns about the prognosis for benefiting from future interventions. Ms. A may be more receptive to services from [Organism A] as this resource is better suited to her needs.

If a trusting therapeutic alliance can be established, a balance of support and challenge may help her to identify underlying relational dynamics.

Ultimately, the goal is to move towards strengthening her personal resources, prioritizing her children’s emotional well-being, and preventing a cycle of abuse. […] Presently, her parenting capacity appears to be limited as a result of relational patterns and therefore the risk factors appear to remain a concern. […] In light of X’s young age and vulnerability, the current context of supervision would prevent a recurrence of past risk factors while progress is monitored over time. [5] [ 24 ] As a result, despite the mother’s desire for unsupervised overnight visits with her son, the evidence does not indicate that such changes to the contacts would be in the child’s best interest. [ 25 ] The mother must still work with greater transparency to gain more insight into the situations that placed her children at risk. [ 26 ] It is hoped that her strong attachment to her son will motivate her to genuinely benefit from support services to prevent the risk of recurrence and to heal from her past trauma. [ 27 ] Consequently, given the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application;

[ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (2) and 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of Ms. C and Mr.

D until December 17, 2021, with a reintegration to his father’s care to begin immediately; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents, and his half-sister Y, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not be exposed to anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that the father submit to random substance testing as requested; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not be exposed to any form of violence; [ 35 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father continue to receive services to sustain his emotional growth and help with conflict/stress management, and that he participate in couple’s therapy with his partner; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to participate in therapeutic services and that she follow the recommendations from her parental capacity assessment, namely that she participate in a conjugal violence program and attend a support group for single parents; [ 37 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and Mr.

E; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange relevant information with the treating professionals involved with the family; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; THE WHOLE for a period of one year. Signed on October 19 , 2021 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marc Bissonnette Attorney for the child Me Marc Morin Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: February 4, June 8 and September 10, 2021. TD/vl