2012 QCCQ 11178, 2012 QCCQ 11178

Protection de la jeunesse — 123699 2012 QCCQ 11178 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004127-117 760-41-004144-120 DATE: March 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2010 Y , born on […], 2011 Youths DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- B -and- C JC0B11 Parents of the children ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Declarations of protection are submitted to the Court concerning X, born on […], 2010 and Y, born on […], 2011. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and the development of the children are in danger due to neglect on the educational plan and a risk of physical abuse (exposure to conjugal violence), as detailed more amply in paragraph 3 of the motions. [ 3 ] Among other measures, the Petitioner recommends that the children remain with their mother with measures of aid, counselling and assistance for 1 year. [ 4 ] By consent, the Petitioner produces various documents as evidence in lieu of testimony, including the reports on the analysis of the children's social situation. [ 5 ] The Court dispenses service of the motion to the father and proceeds in his absence, as the evidence demonstrates that he is of unknown address, has consistently refused to cooperate and has been repeatedly advised of the Court date by the mother or the Petitioner.

The admissions of the parties as to the motion are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 6 ] When the initial report is made, the children are residing with their parents and their uterine siblings Z (6) and A (5). The parents form a couple since 2009 and, although they are not living together at the onset of the intervention, the exact status of their relationship remains unclear. [ 7 ] The mother is the primary caregiver. The father's work

schedule results in minimal contact with the children. He openly states assuming little responsibility for their upbringing. He is at the maternal home on a regular basis, but usually when the children are asleep. [ 8 ] In the home, there is a lack of organization, especially for meal and bed times. The parents are little equipped to address issues on routine, discipline and educational methods, which impact the children's security and development on the short term and if not corrected, more profoundly on a long term basis. [ 9 ] The parent's relationship is often contentious.

The father is impulsive and reacts viscerally. An issue of the father's alcohol and drug consumption is also a factor in the conflicts. The parents are unable to ascertain the negative consequences of their arguments on the children under their care, preferring to state that they take care to argue behind closed doors, or that the arguments are not of an intensity to impact the children. Notwithstanding, the evidence clearly demonstrated numerous significant incidents of physical and verbal violence between them, of which the children are witnesses.

More notably, both parents face criminal accusations following a violent argument of June 2011 in city A, which is the impetus named for their having decided to maintain separate domiciles. [ 10 ] Another issue of concern is repeated incidents of A having marks and bruises on her body. A is reticent to give explanations and has mentioned, on at least one occasion, the father as the source of her injuries.

The mother equates the marks to roughhousing, but the recurrence of the injuries justifies particular prudence and at the very least, attention to the importance of the parental supervision. [ 11 ] As the primary caregiver, the mother is able to see as to the basic needs of her children and is a caring parent.

Notwithstanding, the continued ambiguity of the parents relationship, the father's refusal to participate in the intervention, the lack of accountability and the other personal issues requiring resolution, affect her capacities to fully appreciate and address the children's needs. [ 12 ] The measures ordered will permit that the parents receive the support necessary to correct the difficulties in the home and ensure that the children have an adequate response to their needs in that environment.

The parents primary responsibility will be to work towards clarifying their relationship and maintaining a strife-free and structured home for their children. [ 13 ] The Court determines that the security and the development of the children are compromised due to neglect on the educational plan and a risk of physical abuse.

The recommendations forwarded by the Director of Youth Protection are appropriate and in their best interests. [ 14 ] For thEse reasons, the Court : [ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their mother;

[ 18 ] AUTHORIZES the contacts between the children and their father upon mutual agreement between the parties; [ 19 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection agrees that the frequency and modalities of the father's access be determined primarily between the parents inasmuch as the father maintains his co-operation with the intervention; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling and assistance to the children and their family for a period of one (1) year; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 22 ] ORDERS the father to communicate directly with the Director of Youth Protection at least once every two weeks to inform of the measures he is applying to put an end to situation; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child X attend a child-care establishment; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the family collaborate with the CLSC; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a couple's therapy in the event that there is a resumption of common life; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in an anger management therapy or program; [ 27 ] ORDERS the father not to consume any non-prescription drugs in the presence of his children; [ 28 ] ORDERS the mother to advise the Director of Youth Protection should, to her knowledge, the father not respect the previous order; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Jacinthe Leroux Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 12, 2012