2013 QCCQ 18713, 2013 QCCQ 18713

Protection de la jeunesse — 137284 2013 QCCQ 18713 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001616-132 DATE: Hearing and oral judgment: November 12, 2013 Written judgment: December 13, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JUANITA WESTMORELAND-TRAORÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, Born on […], 2011 [Social Worker 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in City A Applicant -and- A , detained at the detention center A in City B, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a Motion for Protection pursuant to

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to

Section 90 of the Act, the Court hereby provides written reasons for the judgment rendered on November 12, 2013. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking a declaration that the security and development of X are in danger for neglect as described in Sections 38 b) 1) ii) et 38 b) 2) of the Act , and also for physical abuse as described in Sections 38 e) 1) and 38 e) 2. The Director seeks placement of the child X in a foster home until he reaches the age of majority.

He is presently placed with his maternal grandparents. [ 3 ] The parties are not present at this hearing, although the child is represented by his lawyer. Both parents were served, however the mother is presently incarcerated. [Social Worker 1], a human relations officer and delegate of the Director of Youth Protection, testified at the hearing.

According to her testimony, as well as the Court Report Subsequent to Voluntary Measures prepared by her, and dated November 4, 2013, the mother stated on September 21, 2013 that she would not be coming to Court although she was present at the last court hearing and was informed of the date; she wants to have her son returned to her. The father is hostile to Youth Protection services and has threatened them in the past. The Court authorized the proceedings in the absence of the parents. The Facts [ 4 ] X is now two years and […] months old.

He is very vulnerable because of the violent relationship between his parents and the conjugal violence that has often taken place in front of him. [ 5 ] Due to the young age of the child, there were no admissions made by his lawyer at the hearing.

The evidence consisted of the testimony of [Social Worker 1], the Report filed as Exhibit D-3, together with the police occurrence reports. [ 6 ] The lawyer for the child consented to the extension of the recommendation for placement from six months to the age of majority, on condition that the situation would be monitored, and that the parents would not be permitted to remove X from the grandparents' care; [ 7 ] His mother has frequently become intoxicated with alcohol consumption and has been arrested on several occasions as appears

from the numerous occurrence reports served according to

Section 294.1 C.P.C. and produced as D-3 en liasse. [ 8 ] Provisional Measures were signed on July 3 rd 2012 for thirty days. [ 9 ] A further Provisional agreement was signed on August 7 for 30 days, entrusting X to foster care with his paternal grandparents. [ 10 ] On September 6, 2012, voluntary measures were signed entrusting X to his maternal grandparents for six months with supervised visits and a possible reintegration after three months; [ 11 ] On November 26, 2012, by voluntary measures he was entrusted to foster care for an additional six months with supervised visits and possible reintegration after three months; [ 12 ] Additional voluntary measures entrusting X to foster care were signed on May 22, 2013 for three months with possible reintegration and supervised visits; [ 13 ] On June 27, 2013, voluntary measures were signed for six months entrusting X to foster care, with possible reintegration and supervised visits; [ 14 ] X has been with his maternal grandparents in city C since September 6, 2012; he is developing well there and they are concerned about his safety and wish to care for him.

They are also caring for his older sister who was born with a disability but who was the object of a shaken baby assault by her mother during which she was severely injured.

The grandparents insure that the mother doesn't have contact with the children when she is intoxicated. [ 15 ] The grandparents collaborate with the Youth Protection workers; [ 16 ] The paternal grandparents have offered to care for X when the maternal grandparents are in need of respite; [ 17 ] On October 13, 2013, however, the mother took the two children from her parents' home and returned to City A because she was angry with her father who objected to her relationship with X's father. [ 18 ] The mother has not addressed her serious alcohol consumption problems. [ 19 ] On October 18, in a meeting with Youth Protection officers, the mother was intoxicated. [ 20 ] On October 19, the mother took both children back to city C.

She is accused, however, of setting fire to the X's father's home because she was angry. A person in the house almost died. As a result of this incident, she has been charged with several serious accusations and is detained in detention center A.

Analysis [ 21 ] It has been proved on a balance of probabilities that the child X has been the object of neglect according to sections 3 b) 1) ii) and 3 b) 2) of the Act , described as, "failing to give the child the care required for the child's physical or mental health…., …. and placing the child in a situation in which there is a serious risk that a child's parents or the person having custody of the child are not providing for the child's basic needs in the manner referred to in subparagraph p1;" [ 22 ] On May 12, 2013, both parents were arrested for fighting. They were intoxicated.

On May 1, she passed out in an intoxicated state, falling headfirst on a metal balcony. [ 23 ] During her frequent periods of intoxication, she is sometimes homeless; this situation does not allow her to provide for the basic needs of her son X. [ 24 ] The fighting between his parents in his presence is harmful to his psychological and mental health. [ 25 ] X was subjected to physical abuse according to

Section 38 e), (1) a situation in which the child is the victim of bodily injury…and the child's parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; or (2) a situation in which the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury …and the child's parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 26 ] On March 7, 2012, the mother admitted assaulting her aunt while she was drunk. [ 27 ] On July 3, 2012, the mother admitted assaulting her son; the occurrence report describes his injuries.

He was placed in foster care. [ 28 ] X was neglected when his mother was intoxicated as appears in the occurrence report dated January 1, 2013. On this occasion, one of the police officers had to take the baby from her;

[ 29 ] In this case, it is clear that the mother has a very unstable character and both parents have a violent disposition.

Both parents have serious issues with alcohol. [ 30 ] They do not collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; the father has not shown any willingness to collaborate or sufficient interest in raising his son. [ 31 ] He has expressed hostility to the Youth Protection workers. [ 32 ] On the other hand, the Court is pleased with the involvement of both the maternal and paternal grandparents. [ 33 ] The child is evolving well in the care of his maternal grandparents; he is well loved. [ 34 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking placement of the child until his age of majority in order to insure stability in nurturing milieu.

Although a life project has not been elaborated for X, he has only lived in one home other than that of his parents; he has been in the care of his maternal grandparents for the last fourteen months. [ 35 ] The home of the maternal grandparents respects the objectives of the Act in as much as it fosters a continuous relationship with the extended family of the child, including notably the paternal grandparents. [ 36 ] As the lawyer for Youth Protection has indicated, it would, under the right circumstances, also permit visitation by the parents, since the child will be in the home of his maternal grandparents. [ 37 ] The Court considers that if visits were to occur, given the character traits of both parents, supervision by the Director of Youth Protection will be necessary until such time as the safety of X is assured during the visits. [ 38 ] The representative of the child submits rightly that there is no foreseeable change in the violent relationship of the parents, their failure to seek assistance for their personal issues, or the absence of collaboration with the youth protection workers. [ 39 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT [ 40 ] GRANTS this motion; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger; [ 42 ] ORDERS that X, born on […], 2011, with the consent of his attorney, be entrusted to a foster family, namely the foster family of his maternal grandparents, until he reaches the age of majority; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, his parents, and his maternal grandparents, as well as his paternal grandparents when they take care of him; [ 44 ] ORDERS that access and visitation rights of the parents be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection concerning their modalities, frequency and the degree of supervision, including the presence of a third party; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child, the parents, and the grandparents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober while in presence of the child, and that the parents avoid leaving the child in a place where alcohol or drugs are being consumed; this order follows from the report that the father left his son at a special place known notoriously for the use of drugs and alcohol and commonly referred to as the "party place"; [ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to insure that the child receive all necessary health services; [ 48 ] RESERVES to the parties the right to petition the Court for review of this order [ 49 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] ORDERS that this judgment be served on the parents and the grandparents of the child. ______________________________________ JUANITA WESTMORELAND-TRAORÉ, J.C.Q.

M e Joanie Jacob Lawyer for child M e Robert-André Adam Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Date of hearing: November 12, 2013