2016 QCCQ 19213, 2016 QCCQ 19213

Protection de la jeunesse — 169955 2016 QCCQ 19213 COUR DU QUÉBEC CHAMBRE DE LA JEUNESSE CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] N° : 525-41-030350-151 DATE : Le 26 janvier 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de : X Né le [...] 2009 Enfant intimé Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CIUSSS A Requérante - et - A - et - B Parents intimés ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT

Article 38 L.P.J. ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d'identifier un enfant ou ses parents. Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d'une amende. [articles 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J .] [ 1 ] Le présent jugement constitue la version écrite et motivée confirmant le jugement rendu oralement lors de l'audience tenue le 26 janvier 2016. [ 2 ] À la demande et du consentement de toutes les parties, le Tribunal procède à une enquête commune dans la situation des enfants X et Y. [ 3 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en protection en vertu de l'article 38 de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse («LPJ») , dans laquelle la requérante, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse («DPJ»), allègue que la sécurité ou le développement de l'enfant est compromis en vertu des articles 38

c) et 38 b)2 de la LPJ. [ 4 ] En conséquence, la requérante recommande au Tribunal de confier chacun des enfants à leurs parents et d'ordonner certaines autres mesures visant à corriger la situation. [ 5 ] Le père admet certains faits allégués dans la requête, en nie certains autres avec précisions et exprime son accord avec les recommandations. [ 6 ] La mère partage la position du père, tant au niveau des faits allégués que de son accord avec les recommandations. [ 7 ] [Intervenante 1], personne autorisée DPJ, signe un rapport [1] dans lequel elle analyse la situation dans les termes suivants : « On August 18, 2015, the case worker spoke with Mr.

B during a telephone discussion. Mr. B indicated that he was doing well and continues to attend AA meetings. The caseworker referred Mr. B to Foster Pavilion. Mr. B stated that he would contact this resource in order to obtain more information and to

schedule an appointment. On August 25, 2015, the caseworker met with Ms. A and the children. Ms. A indicated that she was feeling better and confident that she had done the right thing by contacting the police when the incident with her husband occurred because she heard that he is doing better since he has access to support services. Ms. A will contact the South Asian Women's Centre and would like to sign up for yoga courses as she likes to meditate. On September 9, 2015, the caseworker spoke with Dr. Khan, Mr. B's doctor, during a telephone interview. Dr. Khan indicated that Mr.

B was last seen at the clinic on September 1 st , 2015. He indicated that Mr. B is taking medication (Celexa) for depression. In 2005, Mr. B had been seen by a psychiatrist and he was diagnosed with depression. On September 16, 2015, the caseworker spoke with Ms. A during a telephone discussion. She indicated that next week, she is moving to City A with the children. On September 24, 2015, the caseworker met with Ms. A and the children in the family home. The family moved into a new home in City A. Y and X indicated that they were happy in their new home. Ms.

A stated that she intends to petition criminal court to withdraw her complaint against her husband. On October 27, 2015, the caseworker met with Ms. A and the children in the family home. Ms. A and the children indicated that Ms. A's brother has been facilitating visits between Mr. B and the children. The children indicated that the visits took place at a mall and that the visits went well. On October 28, 2015, the caseworker met with Mr. B during a scheduled meeting at the DYP office. Mr. B indicated that he continues to attend AA meetings in order to help himself and to reunite with his family in the future.

Mr. B indicated that Ms. A's brother has been facilitating visits between Mr. B and the children. During the month of November 2015, the caseworker had made several attempts to reach Ms. A and Mr. B, to no avail. On December 3, 2015, covering caseworker [Social Worker 3] met with Ms. A and the children in the family. Ms. A indicated that Mr. B's Criminal court conditions were withdrawn and he can return to live in the family. Ms. A indicated that Mr. B is currently in Bangladesh visiting family members. On December 21, 2015, the caseworker met with both parents and the children in the family home. Ms.

A indicated that Mr. B has not been consuming any alcohol and that she feels safe in the home. Both children indicated that they are happy that their father is back in the home and that they are looking forward to spending more quality time with their father. Mr. B indicated that his Criminal court conditions were modified and hi can return to live in the family home. He stated that he will continue attend AA meetings on a weekly basis. Ms. A expressed that she would like to take French courses and the caseworker referred her to language courses within her community. On January 14, 2016, Mr.

B gave a copy of his Criminal court conditions to the caseworker. The prohibition of contact between Ms. B and his wife was withdrawn. Mr. B indicated that he continues to attend AA meetings within the community. He stated that he learned that his behaviour had a negative impact on the children and his wife. Mr. B explained that while he was drinking, he was not available to support his family emotionally and psychologically. He indicated that he wants to remain sober and a good father. Mr.

B indicated that the family will be traveling to Bangladesh for his sister's wedding, from February 12, 2016 to March 4, 2016. » [ 8 ] La DPJ maintient que son implication dans la vie familiale est justifiée pour les raisons suivantes [2] : « DYP has remained involved with the family due to concerns regarding Mr. B's history with substance abuse, and the children's exposure to conjugal disputes as a result of Mr.

B's behaviour. » [ 9 ] Les intervenants identifient les buts et objectifs visés [3] par les interventions proposées dans les termes suivants : « The goal is for the children to remain in the care of their parents. In order for this goal to be accomplished, the following objectives need to be met : • Y and X must not be exposed/subjected to any verbal and/or physical violence; • For Mr. B to gain insight into the violence that exists in his relationship with Ms. A and an increased awareness of the negative impact of conjugal violence on his wife and children; • For Mr.

B to continue to gain insight and develop an understanding in regards to his substance abuse and impact on his wife and children; • For Mr. B to learn healthy strategies to express his feelings and to continue to receive professional help for anxiety and depression; • For Ms.

A to have access to support services for survivors of conjugal violence. » [ 10 ] Ainsi, considérant l'âge des enfants, la récurrence de la situation, le Tribunal conclut que les recommandations de la requérante sont dans l'intérêt de chacun des enfants. [ 11 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT : [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES that security and development of the child X are considered to be endangered for the reasons alleged in the motion; [ 14 ] THEREFORE, ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES : [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to his parents; [ 16 ] ORDERS that father ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of violence, verbal and/or physical;

[ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that father seek services related to drug and alcohol consumption and attend said services regularly, for as long as deemed necessary by the treating professionals; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that mother access support services; [ 19 ] ORDERS that both parents meet with DYP case worker when requested to do so by the latter; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family; [ 21 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine (9) months as of today, meaning until October 26, 2016. [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A.

Signed at City B, April , 2016 __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. LG/jv Me François STE-MARIE Lawyer for DYP Me Alec E. FLEXER Lawyer for the child Hearing date: January 26, 2016