2012 QCCQ 11195, 2012 QCCQ 11195

Protection de la jeunesse — 123715 2012 QCCQ 11195 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004245-125 DATE: June 8, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...] , 2010 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents of the child ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the child X , born on [...] , 2010. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of psychological ill-treatment on the part of both parents, as is more amply detailed in paragraph 3 of the motion.

A 6-month placement in foster care is requested, with measures of aid, counseling and assistance. [ 3 ] A letter from the parents informs of their absence at the hearing and of their consent to the measures. The attorney for the child also affirms an agreement with the measures. [ 4 ] The child resides with his parents and three siblings. He is a normal, healthy child. [ 5 ] At the father's request, the parties proceed to a paternity test, which concludes that he is not X 's biological father.

Shortly after receiving the results of the test, the parents contact the Centre jeunesse A to offer the child for adoption. A month later, the family is advised of the possibility of a progressive integration in the identified adoptive family. [ 6 ] An already tense situation erupts in crisis. The father insists that he is unable to endure the continued presence of the child, being a constant reminder of his spouse's infidelity. He runs to the lake with the child and threatens to throw him in the water.

He threatens suicide or further loss of control should the child not leave the home immediately. [ 7 ] An emergency intervention results in a provisional agreement placing the child in foster care for a thirty-day period. The

parents explain to the child that he will have a new family and he leaves at the end of the day. [ 8 ] The situation intensifies already present conflicts in the family dynamic. The mother divulges that X is the issue of her being sexually abused by a stranger who came to her aid after a suicide attempt in 2009. [ 9 ] Both parents are overwhelmed by the complexity of emotions generated by the circumstances and are unable to be sensitive to the other's sufferings.

Exchanges become difficult, tense and inappropriate. [ 10 ] The mother is the victim of conjugal violence shortly after the departure of X , incidents that are witnessed by the other siblings. The father threatens to kill the mother and the child should she leave. [ 11 ] The present circumstances convince the Court that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of psychological ill-treatment.

The measures proposed not only receive the consent of the parties, but are the reflection of the best interests of the child. [ 12 ] The adoption process is presently suspended, the mother being considered psychologically unavailable to give free and enlightened consent, in view of the pressures from her husband and a situation of domestic violence. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that until the paternity issue arose, the parents offered a stable home to the child, which responded to his physical and affective needs. A significant bond necessarily exists between X , his parents and siblings.

The Court cannot disregard the possibility that either one or both parents may be able to overcome the challenges of the situation and reconsider their decision to sever X from their lives. [ 14 ] The parents seek no contact with the child since his placement. In view of the possible evolution of the situation, the Court determines the necessity to structure the contacts. [ 15 ] The violence of the father's reactions and behaviours dictate that his access to the child be suspended.

As for the mother, supervised access is ordered, conditional to two meetings in view of establishing her projected involvement with the child.

The child's continued stability must underscore all decisions taken on his subject, and in the case of discord, the Court invites the parties to present a petition to specifically evaluate his needs. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to foster care; [ 20 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the child and his father; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be established following agreement between the parties and under the supervision of a third person designated by the Director of Youth Protection.

These contacts will be conditional to two prior meetings with the Director to establish the mother's projected involvement with the child; [ 22 ] PERMITS the withdrawal of the supervision following the agreement between the Director and the parties, according to the evolution of the family situation and the child's interests; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his parents for a period of 6 months; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 8, 2012