2023 QCCQ 6542, 2023 QCCQ 6542

Protection de la jeunesse — 233370 2023 QCCQ 6542 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 001159-216 DATE: April 5, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2021 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on April 5, 2023. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the Honourable Nathalie Samson on December 20, 2022. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to his maternal grandmother’s care and that diverse support measures be ordered until December 31, 2023.

The Director also asks that the Tribunal add “physical abuse” as a rationale for compromission. [ 4 ] The parents did not present themselves at the hearing. [ 5 ] The child’s attorney discussed the Director’s duty to evaluate a signalement. She recommended that the Court respects the maximum duration of placement. Questions in litigation [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? [ 7 ] Can the completion of the Director’s revision process on February 15, 2023 be considered as a “new fact” under

article 95 of the Youth Protection Act ? [ 8 ] Should the Court disregard the maximum duration of placement set in the Youth Protection Act ? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] Here are some “new facts” that were presented in evidence: • The parents’ situation remained essentially the same. Their relationship status is not clear at this time.

• The father has continued to be detained at the Detention Centre A following incidents of conjugal violence towards the mother. He was recently released. • The mother has continued to struggle with personal issues. She collaborates with the Director but has not taken any formal steps to address her situation. • The mother has criminal conditions not to be alone with the child. She was able to visit the child at the grandparents’ house as often as she wanted. She goes mostly every day.

The visits are reported as positive. • On January 1, 2023, the Director learned that there was a warrant out for the mother’s arrest with regards to a violation of the terms of her house arrest. Her house arrest has ended in mid January 2023. • As the parents have not yet addressed their personal issues, the child’s reintegration to their care would not be in his best interest. • The child has continued to thrive under his maternal grandmother’s care. He is on a waiting list for the community daycare. The grandmother remains available to care for the child.

The allegations of physical abuse [ 10 ] In August and September 2022, the Director received two signalements concerning the child’s situation. It was alleged that the child was subject to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the parents. [ 11 ] On September 23, 2022, during the evaluation of the signalement, the father reported that the mother had been physically aggressive towards the child, by slapping him. She also screamed at him. The father also recognized having used physical correction when the child does not listen.

He admitted to having slapped the child during a diaper change. [ 12 ] The mother always refused to answer the Youth Protection worker’s questions regarding physical correction. [ 13 ] The meetings with both parents pre-dated the December 20, 2022 hearing. [ 14 ] On December 17, 2022, the Youth Protection worker completed his evaluation report of the signalements received. The evaluation was written and accessible to the Director before the December 20, 2022 hearing. [ 15 ] At the hearing, the Director deposited four Occurrence reports (April 30, May 18, August 1, and August 22, 2022.

They all pre- dated the December 20, 2022 hearing. [ 16 ] On February 15, 2023, the Director’s review process was completed. This in itself does not constitute a fact that has arisen since the December 20, 2022 order. [ 17 ] Consequently, the Tribunal will not add “physical abuse” as a rationale for compromission. The maximum duration of placement [ 18 ] The child was entrusted to her grandmother’s care on September 28, 2022.

As the child is 1 year old, his maximum duration of placement will be reached on September 28, 2023. [ 19 ] Today, the Director asks the Tribunal to extend the maximum duration of placement and render a decision until December 2023. During his testimony, the Youth Protection worker mentioned that it would be more convenient to have more time to work with the parents. [ 20 ] Inuit children have the same rights as all other children in Quebec. The maximum durations of placement set in the Youth Protection Act are guidelines that apply to them.

At this point, the evidence does not permit the Tribunal to exceed the maximum duration of placement for this child. THEREFORE, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 23 ] REVISES the order rendered on December 20, 2022 by the Honourable Nathalie Samson; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 25 ] ALLOWS the reintegration of the child if: • the mother is involved in a follow-up with the local CLSC; • the mother is involved in a follow-up with the external educator;

• the father is involved in a follow-up concerning his anger management; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning their anger management and personal issues; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the child’s and the parent’s presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement with the services provided; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to perform unannounced visits at the parents’ residence when the child is present; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until September 28, 2023; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on June 6, 2023 /cd Mtre Justine Carli Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Geneviève Lucas Counsel for the child Date of hearing: April 5, 2023