2022 QCCQ 8028, 2022 QCCQ 8028

Protection de la jeunesse — 222378 2022 QCCQ 8028 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002630-215 DATE: February 1, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...] Applicant and A, Mother and B, 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on April 23, 2021, by the honourable Eric Hamel, J.C.Q. regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2006. [ 2 ] At that date, the Court declared the security and development of the youth in danger and entrusted him to his mother until April 22, 2022. [ 3 ] In the case of X, being the oldest of the height children, the Director submits that the situation does allow to maintain the youth with the mother, but that the placement has to be prolonged. [ 4 ] The DYP argue that the father is not involved in the life of the youth, that the mother and her boyfriend display alcohol problems and conjugal violence problems and that the children were subjected to physical abuse from the mother and her boyfriend. [ 5 ] That being said, the DYP believes that with the appropriate follow-up measures, the Court should entrust the youth to the mother for one year.

Position of the parties [ 6 ] The mother is present and represented. She denies or ignores the factual allegations of the DYP and she do not agree with the proposed measure either. [ 7 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], social worker for the DYP, testified about the steps she took to reach the father before the day of the present hearing. He was served the documents and she tried many time to reach him since then, without success. [ 8 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES having jurisdiction to proceed in the absence of the father. [ 9 ] The youth is not present, but he is represented.

Through his lawyer, he expressed his agreement with the measure proposed by the DYP. [ 10 ] The DYP filed their documentary evidence, which was completed by the testimony of Ms. [Social Worker 1]. The mother testified on her behalf. [ 11 ] The Court took knowledge of the documentary evidence complemented by the testimonial evidence. The present decision is based on the careful analysis of that evidence. Facts

[ 12 ] For a better understanding of the context in which the present decision is rendered, the Court finds it relevant to summarize the family constellation of the youth. [ 13 ] Four children were born from the union of the mother and Mr. B. From those 4 children, 3 are still under the age of 18, including the youth X. The children live with their mother and with Mr. C, with whom the mother had five other children now aged between eight and one years old. [ 14 ] Therefore, before the intervention of the DYP, the youth lived with his mother, with Mr.

C, his stepfather, with his two siblings and with his five maternal half-siblings. [ 15 ] The evidence of the DYP established that since the last measure, the parents did not improve their situation significantly. [ 16 ] The father is not involved in the children’s life and the mother and her boyfriend, Mr. C, still struggle with an alcohol addiction and with conjugal violence. [ 17 ] It is also established that during the last measure, the children were subjected to violence on the part of the mother’s boyfriend. The violence occurred while Mr. C was either sober or intoxicated.

That violence towards the children is denied by Mr. C and by the mother. The Court will come back later on their testimony. [ 18 ] It is furthermore established that the mother did not always prioritize the best interest of her children during the last measure. She did not collaborate enough with the Director on many aspect and she did not provide at all time a clean environment of living to her children, exempt of alcohol and violence.

Finally, it is also clear that the mother is going through a difficult time in her life right now. [ 19 ] On the educational level, the uncontested evidence shows that the mother did not react properly when confronted by the school about the high absenteeism of her two oldest sons. [ 20 ] In support of their demand, the DYP present to the Court a long list of events involving the mother and her boyfriend, Mr. C.

The Court will summarize the most relevant ones. [ 21 ] On July 30, 2021, the police and Social services intervened with the mother and her boyfriend because they got into a fight, while intoxicated, in the presence of the youth. Through her lawyer, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event. [ 22 ] On August 2, 2021, the police had to intervene again, but this time with Mr. C, the mother’s boyfriend, since he was physically abusive towards the children. According to the uncle, Mr. D, Mr.

C, who is also the father of the younger siblings of the youth, had banged the children’s head against the wall and he was screaming at them. Following the incident, Mr. C was asked to leave the house by the police. Again, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event. [ 23 ] The day after, the youth and his siblings were found in the house, without proper supervision, while the mother and another adult were both deeply asleep and could not be awaken. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, Mr.

D, the uncle who was often watching and protecting the children against the behaviour of the parents, got injured in an ATV accident on August 4, 2021, and he have been in a coma ever since. [ 25 ] That same day, a meeting was held with the Mr. C to explain why the DYP intended to entrust all the children to a foster home. [ 26 ] According to the evidence provided by the DYP, Mr. C admitted the alcohol consumption issues and stated that he was still open to receive services from social services. [ 27 ] As for the mother, she did not collaborate, she screamed at the workers and asked them to leave the house.

She did not admit any of the problems that were raised by the DYP and it is only after Mr. C had left the house that she was able to calm down and provide names for a potential foster family for her children. However, when the time came to talk about the situation of her youngest child, the mother once again ceased to collaborate and the DYP workers had to call the police for assistance, in order to get the children out of the house. [ 28 ] From August 5 to August 11, 2021, the mother called the DYP’s emergency line up to seven times during the evening or the night.

During those phone calls, the mother was intoxicated by alcohol and she was insulting the worker that answered the phone. It is also said that during those phone calls, the mother was disrespectful with the workers that tried to help her. [ 29 ] According to what Mr. C told the DYP, the mother consumed alcohol every day during that period of time. [ 30 ] On August 12, 2021, the DYP spoke with the mother again. During that conversation, she was explained the steps she had to take and the changes she had to make for her children to be returned under her care.

Of course, alcohol consumption was a central element of that conversation. However, that same night, the police intervened with the mother and Mr. C because of their state of intoxication and because of conjugal violence. [ 31 ] On August 20, 2021, the mother once again called the emergency line of the DYP, while intoxicated and stated that she did not want any help from them. [ 32 ] On September 9, 2021, the mother contacted the DYP office in the middle of the afternoon.

During that call, the mother, who was highly intoxicated, threaten to beat up the foster family that was taking care of two of the youth’s siblings. Later on that day, when the DYP worker went to the foster home to pick up the children, the foster family informed them that the mother, who was still clearly intoxicated, had called many times during the evening to harass them. [ 33 ] Later that same day, the mother expressed suicidal thoughts and she was brought to the hospital by a social services worker, with the help of the police.

During the risk assessment evaluation, the mother admitted that she will drink all night again after being

released from the hospital. [ 34 ] In

summary, the evidence presented to the Court established a long list of events involving the mother being intoxicated and having inappropriate behaviours. Those events, combined with the rest of the evidence, demonstrate that the mother is still struggling with an alcohol addiction, and with other personal issues. Furthermore, she did not collaborate with the DYP, refused the help that was offered to her and she is not currently taking much steps to improve her situation. [ 35 ] The mother does not admit her issues and therefore, she does not want to work on them.

She had suicidal thoughts and she seems to have difficulty to manage her emotions and her anger. [ 36 ] The mother testified at the hearing. [ 37 ] She first admitted, when it was suggested to her, that she could be suffering from a depression, but she could not elaborate on the subject and she did not think that she needs to see a psychologist. [ 38 ] She doesn’t know how she could improve her situation and when she was asked to comment about her alcohol consumption, her only answer was that “it is better”. [ 39 ] Furthermore, apart from generally denying the conjugal violence, she remains quite vague on that subject. [ 40 ] When her lawyer asked her what kind of help she would need to improve her situation, she answered that she did not really know. [ 41 ] In cross-examination, she confirmed that she recently told the DYP worker that she agreed with the measures proposed for the children, but she could not explains why she changed her mind at the hearing. [ 42 ] The mother also said that she does not believe her children when they say that they are victim of violence from Mr.

C. [ 43 ] In

summary, the testimony of the mother was very limited, and mostly vague on many subjects. Clearly, such a testimony do not contradict the evidence presented by the DYP to support their demand and to justify the measures that they are proposing. [ 44 ] Concerning the mother’s boyfriend and father of the youngest siblings of the youth, Mr. C, his collaboration was qualified as good and he is involved in the life of his children, including the tree oldest that are not his.

He made himself available for meetings, ask for visits with the children and he was present during those visits. [ 45 ] Furthermore, the DYP have been informed that the father started a follow-up for people struggling with an addiction. Contrary to the mother, Mr. C, who is identified as the person who have been violent with the children, have been taking concrete steps to improve his situation and to maintain a bond with the children. [ 46 ] That being said, even if Mr.

C recognized certain issues and took steps to improve the situation, it is still worrisome that he denies any form of violence toward the children. [ 47 ] To illustrate the fragility of Mr. C recent sobriety, the Court wish to point out that since about a months ago, alcohol is no longer sold in the village. When Mr.

C was asked in cross-examination what he will do to maintain his sobriety when alcohol will become available again for purchase, he answered that “he will do his best and try to visit friends that hopefully are going to be sober”. [ 48 ] Another particular aspect of the file, is that when the Director tried to entrust X and his younger brother to a foster family, they both categorically refused and demanded to stay with their mother. The Court understands that this situation played a central role in the decision of the DYP to reintegrate X and his brother with the mother.

Furthermore, at one point, the mother and Mr. C came back together. Violence on the children [ 49 ] On the question of the allegations of violence toward the children, the Court finds the evidence presented by the DYP quite convincing. [ 50 ] The Court will not review in detail every gestures of violence established in the evidence nor the particular specific circumstances and elements of confirmation that proves that those events took place. [ 51 ] But the DYP have clearly established that on numerous occasions, Mr. C was violent toward the children.

Since the family is composed of children of different ages, all of them, except maybe the three youngest, have either been victim of violence or witness such violence on their siblings. Furthermore, the testimony of the children that were old enough to provide one, were collected by specialized investigators from the Sureté du Québec, during non-suggestive interviews. [ 52 ] The Court also wish to point out that the younger siblings of the youth expressed that they were afraid to go back home and that according to their perception, the mother was aware of the physical abuse done by Mr.

C. [ 53 ] Consequently, even if Mr. C offers a general denial of those numerous gestures of violence toward the children, the Court concludes, from all the evidence, that the children were indeed subject to physical abuse as it is alleged by the DYP. Analysis [ 54 ] As I said before, a particular aspect of this file is the fact that when the DYP tried to entrust X and his younger brother to a foster family, they both categorically refused and demanded to stay with their mother.

[ 55 ] The Court understands that this situation played a role in the decision of the DYP to reintegrate the two oldest boys with their mother, accompanied by other measures set to put an end to the situation of endangerment. The Court also understands that considering their age, their situation is different compared to their younger siblings and they are therefore less vulnerable. [ 56 ] The Court will therefore go along with the suggestion of the DYP to entrust the youth to the care of his mother.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 57 ] GRANTS the application; [ 58 ] REVISES the decision rendered on April 23, 2021; [ 59 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X are still in danger regarding

section 38 e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 60 ] ENTRUSTS the youth X under the care of his mother; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the youth’s parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or their youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the youth are in danger; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the youth and the youth’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the youth and the youth’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 64 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother receive specific health care and health services, including psychological assessment; [ 65 ] ORDERS that contacts between the youth and the youth’s father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with regards to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 66 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution of body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the youth’s family for a period of one year; [ 67 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 68 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 69 ] THE WHOLE for one year.

Signed on March 28, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the Applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Me Angèle Tommasel Me Angèle Tommasel, avocate Counsel for the mother B Personally Father Date of hearing: February 1, 2022