2022 QCCQ 14554, 2022 QCCQ 14554

Protection de la jeunesse — 229120 2022 QCCQ 14554 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000922-211 DATE: September 7, 2022 (written judgment rendered on October 3, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant and B Mother and C 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 9.2 et 9.3 et 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on January 26, 2022, regarding the child X, born on […], 2010. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to Mr. D as proximity foster family for a period of 12 months. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the child to his parents and recommend that the child be entrusted to Mr.

D as a proximity foster family until August 31, 2023, with a reintegration under the mother’s care following strict conditions, the whole until February 28, 2024. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Jennifer Lévesque-Girard. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present, but not represented. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is 11 ½ years old.

He is present and represented by Me Samuel Richard-Guertin. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The child has 3 brothers Y (7 ½ y), Z (13 ½

y) and A (15 y). The Court is also seized with their situations. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On January 26, 2022 , the situation of the child was submitted to the court. He was 11 years old. The situation of the family was known from the DYP since 2018 for conjugal violence issues and substance abuse. The father accumulated many breaches of criminal conditions in a context of conjugal violence. On October 1, 2021, a provisional agreement was signed by the parents. They agree that the children would be maintained with the mother to the exclusion of the father.

Two weeks later, both parents were found at home in the presence of the children. The DYP entrusted the children under their maternal grandfather’s care. The mother recognized that the problematic relationship dynamic is persistent and that the parents were unable to respect their agreements or the Court decision. Despite her low level of collaboration, the mother has good parental capacities and she is able to change the situation. The mother was working on her sobriety, but admitted having some relapses.

She recognized her anger management issues and she asks for a follow-up in a clinic in Town A and also with the friendship centre. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted him to his grandfather, Mr. D. The Court authorized the reintegration with the mother under very strict conditions. Facts

[ 8 ] Considering the absence of contestation, the parties file a draft agreement in which they admit the facts that justify maintaining the declaration of endangerment. [ 9 ] Those facts are the following: 2.1 On January 26, 2022, the children were entrusted to Mr.

D as proximity foster family with a possible reintegration under the mother’s care between March 1 and June 2022, with few conditions; 2.2 One of those condition is that the parents not to be together in the presence of the children except with previous authorization of the DYP worker are for specific events enounced in the judgment; 2.3 On June 16, 2022, the mother asked the DYP worker to inform her of all contacts she has with her children and wishes for the worker to have a third-party present during the meeting with her children; 2.4 On June 16, 2022, three of the children confirmed to the DYP worker that their father has been living with them again at their mother’s house since early May; 2.5 On June 17, the parents were seen, along with their son X and the grandfather (FAP), all together in the same motor vehicle without asking previously the DYP worker the permission; 2.6 The DYP is also aware that there had been few conflicts between the parents during the past few months; 2.7 On June 17, the DYP had to put an end to the reintegration of the children with the mother since she was not respecting the Court orders; 2.8 On June 25, 2022, the police received a call mentioning that there is an altercation at the father’s residence between the parents as it appeared from the police report as file under exhibit D-10; 2.9 A third party reported to the police that he saw the mother hit the father on his head with his fits; 2.10 On their way towards the father’s residence, the police officers met with the father and they noticed that Mr.

C was injured on his head and had blood on his forehead; 2.11 The father doesn’t want to press charges against the mother but did confirm verbally that the mother hit him using a phone; 2.12 At that moment, the mother was under release order with the condition of not to be at the father’s residence; 2.13 The mother was arrested and she is now facing criminal charges of assault causing bodily harm; 2.14 The mother is also accused of other criminal offences that are still in front of the court; 2.15 The mother does not fully collaborate with the DYP worker as she only allows meetings to take place at lunch time at her home; 2.16 The mother does not trust Social Services and she is often rushing to end the meeting; 2.17 The mother is currently receiving therapeutic counselling; 2.18 As for the father, he is sometimes unreachable and he does not return his calls; 2.19 In the past months, there have been a number of police interventions involving the father; [ 10 ] In this draft agreement, the parties agree to comply with the following measures: 3.1 That the children be entrusted to Mr.

D as a proximity foster family, until August 31, 2023; 3.2 That the frequency and modality of the contacts between the children and the parents be supervised and determined by the Director of Youth protection, including the presence of a third party if deemed necessary; 3.3 That the reintegration under the mother’s care be started between May 1 and August 31, 2023, if the following conditions are respected: 3.4 That the parents collaborate actively with the DYP worker; 3.5 That the parents respect the condition not to be together in the presence of the children; 3.6 That the mother benefit from a personal follow-up in regard to her personal trauma and anger management; 3.7 If the parents do not respect those conditions, authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to stop the reintegration process; 3.8 That the mother seek professional aid from an organism of her choice for anger management; 3.9 That the mother receive professional services to deal with her trauma;

3.10 That the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviours in the presence of the children; 3.11 That the father continue to get help from a professional of his choice for his addiction and violence problems for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; 3.12 That the parents prevent from exposing the children to people that are intoxicated or violent; 3.13 That the parents never be together in the presence of the children except with the previous authorization from the Youth Protection worker and for specific reasons as for example birthday party, school activity, sports tournaments and following the strict conditions that would be determined by the Youth Protection worker; 3.14 That the parents accept to involve some family members in the Youth Protection follow-up and to participate to a family council to determine what kind of help the relatives could offer and to determine a safety net around the family; 3.15 That the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are endangered; 3.16 That a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the family until February 28, 2024; [ 11 ] The parties confirm that they understand the content of the draft agreement well, they agree with and they gave their consent freely. [ 12 ] The Court considers that those measures are in the best interest of the child and accepts to ratify it.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the application; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2010, are still endangered; [ 15 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement signed by the parties on September 7, 2022; [ 16 ] ORDERS the parties to comply with the following measures: • That the children be entrusted to Mr.

D as a proximity foster family, until August 31, 2023; • That the frequency and modality of the contacts between the children and the parents be supervised and determined by the Director of Youth protection, including the presence of a third party if deemed necessary; • That the reintegration under the mother’s care be started between May 1 and August 31, 2023, if the following conditions are respected: • That the parents collaborate actively with the DYP worker; • That the parents respect the condition not to be together in the presence of the children; • That the mother benefit from a personal follow-up in regard to her personal trauma and anger management; • If the parents do not respect those conditions, authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to stop the reintegration process; • That the mother seek professional aid from an organism of her choice for anger management; • That the mother receive professional services to deal with her trauma; • That the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviours in the presence of the children; • That the father continue to get help from a professional of his choice for his addiction and violence problems for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; • That the parents prevent from exposing the children to people that are intoxicated or violent; • That the parents never be together in the presence of the children except with the previous authorization from the Youth Protection worker and for specific reasons as for example birthday party, school activity, sports tournaments and following the strict conditions that would be determined by the Youth Protection worker; • That the parents accept to involve some family members in the Youth Protection follow-up and to participate to a family council to determine what kind of help the relatives could offer and to determine a safety net around the family; • That the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are endangered; • That a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the family until February 28, 2024; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order;

[ 18 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to attach to this judgment a copy of the draft agreement to form an integrant part hereof, and to attach such copy of the judgment to be subsequently delivered. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Marie-Michelle Grenier, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Samuel Richard-Guertin, attorney for the child Me Jennifer Lévesque-Girard, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 7, 2022