2016 QCCQ 13922, 2016 QCCQ 13922

Protection de la jeunesse — 166285 2016 QCCQ 13922 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000714-162 DATE: September 26, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her capacity as person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux, having a place of business at [...], Town A, District A, [...] Applicant and A, presently residing at Centre de detention d’Amos, located at 851, 3e Rue Ouest, Amos, District of Abitibi, J9T 2T4 Mother and B, domiciled and residing at [...], Town B, District A, [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, 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 guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection has submitted to the Court an application for protection concerning the situation of X, born on [...], 2015. [ 2 ] Both parents were present and represented by their counsel.

They admitted most of the allegations in the application. Consequently, the fact that the security and development of the child are in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (2) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act is not disputed. [ 3 ] Each parent is asking the Court for custody of the child. The applicant is recommending that custody of the child be shared. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 4 ] What are the measures to apply in order to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger? FACTS [ 5 ] The child is 11 months old. Since his birth he has been mostly under his mother’s care. The parents have never been a couple. They became involved with each other and conceived X.

The father is in a relationship with C; they have been married for two years now. [ 6 ] On February 15, 2016, the Superior Court rendered a judgment granting custody of the child to the mother and granting the following access rights to the father :

a) Jusqu’au 31 mars 2016, sur entente entre les parties au domicile de la demanderesse;

b) Du 1 er avril au 30 mai 2016, une période de 4 heures le mardi et une période de 4h le jeudi, de 13h à 17h;

c) Du 1 er juin au 30 juillet 2016, les mardis et les jeudis de 9h à 17h;

d) À compter du 1 er août 2016, du mardi 9h au jeudi 17h, une semaine sur deux, sur préavis de 48 heures donné à la demanderesse;

e) À compter de l’été 2007, une période de 10 jours consécutifs, le défendeur devant aviser la demanderesse du choix des dates au plus tard le 1 er mai de chaque année;

f) 7 jours durant la période des Fêtes, alternativement d’année en année entre la période de Noël et du Jour de l’an; [ 7 ] The parents are in a very complicated and conflictual relationship. [ 8 ] In fact, both parents admit that the circumstances in which the child is exchanged are disrespectful and that police assistance is needed. The police have been called for exchanges during which the mother was very aggressive and used very offensive language in the presence of the child, who cried a lot during the exchanges. [ 9 ] Last May, the mother was arrested and detained for a week, charged with drug trafficking.

During the mother’s detention, the child was in the care of the maternal grandmother, who prohibited the father from seeing the child. [ 10 ] On July 19, 2016, the mother was arrested after a complaint was lodged for assault and threats against the father. She was detained until July 28, 2016. The child was in the care of the father and his spouse. [ 11 ] The father also received numerous text messages from the mother containing threats of violence against him if he approached their son. [ 12 ] The father has a criminal record, and there is a case pending against him in a drug matter.

According to him, the case will be withdrawn at the next Court term, since it raises Charter considerations relating to the drug seizure. As concerns this youth protection case, the Court is of the opinion that the fact that drugs were found at his residence is still relevant even if the charge is dropped for Charter considerations. [ 13 ] The father admits that he has to work on his parental abilities.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 14 ] In light of the evidence and having considered the admissions of the parents, the Court finds that the parents’ conflictual relationship endangers the security and development of the child. The parents have exposed the child to their conflicts and the mother has used oral and physical violence against the father. [ 15 ] In this case, it has been established on a balance of probabilities that a situation of psychological ill-treatment exists, within the meaning of

section 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 16 ] There is also a serious risk of neglect, considering the mother’s long history of substance abuse. Currently, she appears to be able to control her consumption but she is still fragile. In the past, she has had periods of sobriety followed by relapses. [ 17 ] The Court believes that the father lacks transparency when he says that he is not involved in any drug possession. The reason for this opinion is that, on two different occasions, the police seized drugs in his residence.

However, the Court is also taking into consideration the father’s admission that he needs help in order to improve his parental abilities. [ 18 ] The evidence shows that the security and development of the child are in danger, considering the serious risk of neglect under

section 38 ( b )2 of the Youth Protection Act . APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 19 ] The Court has availed itself of the report of [Social Worker 1], social worker for the Director of Youth Protection, who assessed the entire situation. [ 20 ] The Court heard the testimony of both parents, each of whom thinks that the child is in danger with the other.

The parents recognize that the child needs both parents in his life, but each parent has concerns about the other parent’s life style. [ 21 ] According to Ms. [Social Worker 1], the social worker, the mother has been able to demonstrate that she has very good parental skills. The father took very good care of the child during the mother’s incarceration.

Both parents need help at different levels to ensure that the child evolves in a safe and stimulating environment. [ 22 ] They have to realize that their personal history together and their issues as a couple must not interfere with their parental role toward their child.

X has the right to develop an attachment bond with both parents. [ 23 ] It is clear to the Court that the intervention of a third party is necessary to avoid conflicts in the child’s presence. [ 24 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and the parents for a period of 12 months.

The applicant will be seeking shared custody of the child during that period. [ 25 ] The Court accepts the recommendation, but for a shorter period of six months, in order to assess whether it is possible to improve the conflictual situation and maintain shared custody of the child. [ 26 ] The interest of the child is the main consideration in the decision to be taken by the Court. If the parents are not able to prioritize their child’s needs and set aside their own conflicts, a review of the situation will be necessary to ensure that the child develops in a safe and nurturing environment.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application;

[ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2015, are in danger; [ 29 ] ORDERS shared custody of X, with each parent successively having custody of X from Monday 10:00 a.m. to the following Monday at 10:00 a.m.; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the exchange of the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection or a person designated by the Director for as long as necessary; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person on a regular basis to the Director of Youth Protection to inform the Director of the current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 33 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the mother’s consent to a psychiatric assessment; [ 34 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the mother’s consent to follow-up therapy for her anger management problem; [ 35 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents for a period of six months; [ 36 ] ORDERS both parents to be sober in the presence of the child, specifically, that they refrain from using drugs other than those prescribed by a health professional; [ 37 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the consent of both parents to receive unannounced visits at their residence; [ 38 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the consent of both parents to authorize the Director of Youth Protection to obtain information from the attending professionals, their recommendations and their objectives; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present order. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Peggy Warolin For the child Mtre. Julie Lemire For the applicant Mtre. Daniel Ouellette For the mother Mtre. Michel-Étienne Parayre For the father Date of hearing: August 4, 2016