2016 QCCQ 5263, 2016 QCCQ 5263

Protection de la jeunesse — 161762 2016 QCCQ 5263 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41- 030677-165 DATE : February 24, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2002 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father 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 February 24 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of the situation of the adolescent alleging that his security and development are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment (exposed to conjugal violence). The Director is asking that the adolescent be entrusted to the care of Ms.

C, his father's ex-partner, and that aid, counsel and assistance, along with other measures, be provided for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The father admits most of the facts alleged in the motion, namely the conjugal violence and the fact that the adolescent has been exposed to incidents of conjugal violence. The father is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director. [ 4 ] On behalf of the adolescent, essentially the same admissions were made, namely that he has witnessed incidents of conjugal violence opposing his father and Ms. C.

The adolescent is in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. [ 5 ] Although efforts were made to serve the mother, formal proof reception of the motion by mother has not been made. Testimony has been provided to the effect that the mother has received the documents in Town A where she lives. The mother is said to be in agreement

with the recommendations of the Director. All parties agree to proceed in her absence. [ 6 ] Considering efforts were made by the Director to be in telephone contact with the mother and that Ms. C testified to the effect that the mother has received the motion and is in agreement with the recommendations, the Court accepts, exceptionally, to proceed even if formal proof of service has not been provided. CONTEXT [ 7 ] The evaluation of the signalement received on January 11 th , 2016 reveals that the father and Ms.

C have had a conflictual relationship for years and that the adolescent has been exposed to incidents of conjugal violence. [ 8 ] More specifically, on January 10 th , 2016, an incident of conjugal violence occurred and police intervention was requested. The father and Ms. C blame each other for the incident that occurred. Both recognize that the adolescent has witnessed that incident as well as others. [ 9 ] Ever since that incident, Ms. C and the adolescent have remained in the father's apartment while he has left his domicile to live temporarily at his mother's place. As soon as Ms.

C will be able to relocate, he will return and live in his apartment. [ 10 ] The father and Ms. C have no intention, for the time being, to reunite. Both have refused the services suggested to address their issues of conjugal violence. [ 11 ] The evidence reveals that the adolescent's parents were separated soon after the child's birth. Mother and child lived in Town B and the child spent weekends with his father. [ 12 ] When the child was eight years old, he and his mother went to live in Town A for three years.

The child then kept telephone contacts with his father. [ 13 ] The child returned to Town B at the age of eleven, to live with his paternal grandmother, to access better education. It is unknown as to why he lived with his paternal grandmother rather than his father. [ 14 ] In October 2014, the adolescent went to live with his father and Ms. C. The circumstances of this move are unclear but it appears that the grandmother had difficulty managing his behaviour.

The adolescent would have been told never to contact again his paternal grandmother and not even to speak to her if he was to see her on the street. [ 15 ] Following the incident of conjugal violence that occurred in January 2016, the adolescent expressed his desire to live with Ms. C. [ 16 ] The decision taken by the father and his ex-partner to end their relationship is likely to protect the adolescent from future exposure to conjugal violence. [ 17 ] The Court is concerned by the lack of clarity around the exercise of parental authority. The mother lives in Town A and is hardly reachable by DYP.

The father lives in Town B and the child is entrusted to Ms. C who may feel authorized to exercise parental authority because the mother has signed a one-line document "giving legal rights" of her son to Ms. C. The matter has to be addressed and the Director has to clarify and limit the role of Mrs. C within the context of the entrustment of the adolescent under the Youth Protection Act. [ 18 ] The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents, as stated in

Section 2.2 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 19 ] If the relationship between the adolescent and his father is strained, the support and guidance of the Director will be necessary in order to establish or re-establish a healthy relationship between them. The father's involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping him to exercise his parental responsibilities. [ 20 ] The father has expressed his desire to see his son. The adolescent is not opposed to it.

The Director will have to go beyond the mere desire of the adolescent to have or not contacts with his father in order to address the issues and work on the father and son relationship. [ 21 ] Both parents are expected to collaborate with the Director and make themselves available, providing the Director ways to be reached at all times. [ 22 ] The Court welcomes the involvement of Ms. C as she seems to be a significant person in the life of the adolescent.

Her involvement nonetheless, should not, in any way, exclude that of the father. [ 23 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the adolescent are compromised due to psychological ill- treatment. The measures recommended meet the needs of the adolescent and are in his best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child 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: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to the care of Ms. C;

[ 26 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate fully with the Director of the Youth Protection; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the modalities of contacts between the adolescent and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and ideally, the frequency of these contacts should be once (1) a week; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that X continue his follow-up at the CLSC; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his parents; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of six (6) months; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the father Date of hearing : February 24 th , 2016