2019 QCCQ 13882, 2019 QCCQ 13882

Protection de la jeunesse — 194030 2019 QCCQ 13882 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000490-186 DATE: June 4, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2013 Child -and- A -and- B Parents/Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On January 10, 2019, the Court declares that the security and development of both children of this family are in danger. They suffer psychological ill-treatment, being exposed to domestic violence. There is also a serious risk of neglect, as their hygiene is very bad. The father’s addictions would also be an issue. [ 2 ] At the time, the mother does not live with the father anymore.

She is willing to cooperate with the professionals who help the family, in the best interest of the children. Therefore, the Court entrusts the children to the mother, at the exclusion of the father. [ 3 ] Unfortunately, the mother’s good intentions do not lead to lasting changes, on the contrary. [ 4 ] The situation deteriorates to a point where children are removed from their mother’s care, under immediate protective measures, at the end of April. [ 5 ] The Court is now seized with an application in order to revise the previous judgment.

The director of youth protection (DYP) recommends that the children be entrusted to a foster family. The placement is not in dispute. However, the parents ask that the children be entrusted to members of the maternal extended family, who already take care of them on a provisional basis. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals the following situation. [ 7 ] By the end of January, the social worker learns that the parents are still in a relationship and would be engaged. The mother admits seeing the father, but states she does not put the children in contact with him. [ 8 ] Shortly after, the children say otherwise.

They tell the social worker they see their father and talk in details about an activity with him on the previous day. They add that their father says “bad words” to their mother. [ 9 ] Also in January, the children are absent from school for two weeks. [ 10 ] From then on, the DYP becomes aware of various incidents and issues. Sometimes the mother admits problems, sometimes she denies them, but she never takes the initiative to disclose relevant situations. [ 11 ] In

summary, the mother takes drugs, but says she stops taking speed in January. She leaves the children with babysitters from

her family very often in order to spend time with the father. Moreover, the mother does not provide stability to the children. She lives with them at her grandfather’s, but their personal belongings are always piled up or in suitcases. Her relationship with the father is also troubling. They are still a couple, but conflicts remain present to an unknown extent. [ 12 ] There are also issues directly related to the children’s psychological well-being. The mother discusses with her daughter the possibility of a placement. The children are also told they should not talk about seeing their father.

Even after being placed, the little girl talks about secrets. [ 13 ] In school, the children’s situation also gets worse. Both children have mood swings, they refuse to listen, they show poor concentration. [ 14 ] It is in this context that the children are removed from their mother’s care. After a few days in a regular foster family, they are entrusted to their great-aunt and her spouse, on April 30. [ 15 ] The children function very well since their placement. Their hygiene is better and their behaviour more appropriate. The relationship with the great-aunt and her spouse is positive.

Obviously, the children benefit from the placement. [ 16 ] Nevertheless, some incidents raise suspicions from the DYP. At first, the great-aunt says her children do not live under her roof anymore. Shortly after, the social workers finds out the adult daughter is back home. She also happens to be the mother’s friend. The little girl also declares to the social worker she saw her mother who asked her not to disclose it. The DYP wonders if the great-aunt is able to put limits to the parents, since the mother is family. [ 17 ] Unsurprisingly, the mother denies seeing her children when she is not authorized to do so.

However, it is a challenge to distinguish between true and false when the mother speaks. [ 18 ] However, the great-aunt also tells that the children do not see their parents other than according to the schedule.

At the light of the whole evidence, and bearing in mind the children’s interest, the Court is not willing to put aside the great-aunt’s testimony. [ 19 ] On the balance of probability, the Court is convinced that the children should remain in their current environment, with people they know and who are able and willing to take care of them. [ 20 ] As for the other recommended measures, they appear to be in the children’s best interest.

FOR THE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mrs. C and Mr.

D until November 30, 2019; [ 24 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her parents be scheduled as per the agreement between the parties and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and do not use drugs or alcohol in the presence of the child; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random drug and alcohol testing; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents commit to follow-up related to their personal problems, specifically in addiction treatment and any other pertinent consultation for conjugal violence; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father not denigrate the mother in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the DYP as required on the measures they are applying to themselves or to their child to end the situation that endangers the security and development of the child; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active role in the measures ordered to end the situation that puts the child at risk; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organization or an establishment provide the child and her family with aid, counsels and assistance until November 30, 2019; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, who will see to the execution of these measures; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the people affected by this judgment comply with it.

__________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the mother Mr. B the father Written judgment filed on June 7, 2019