2015 QCCQ 13997, 2015 QCCQ 13997

Protection de la jeunesse — 153120 2015 QCCQ 13997 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000655-159 610-41-000656-157 DATE: April 17, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A Applicant -and- X & Y, Children -and- MRS A, Mother -and- MR B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born on […], 2010, and Y, born on […], 2013. It is alleged that the security and development of both children are endangered due a serious risk of neglect (38 (b)

(2) Y.P.A.) and because they are victim of psychological ill-treatment (38 (

c) Y.P.A.). [ 2 ] At the hearing, the children are absent considering their young age but they are represented by counsel. Both parents are present, but only the father chose to be represented by a lawyer. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present case does not raise any litigious issue since the parties admit that the security and the development of both children are endangered on the grounds alleged by the Director of Youth Protection. In addition, the parties agree with the director’s main recommendation to entrust the children to the mother.

THE FACTS [ 4 ] The parents have a history of domestic violence within their relationship. According to the mother, during the last year the father’s outbursts of violence intensified due to his increased drug consumption. Last December, while the mother had Y in her arms, the father tried to strangle her while trying to steal her cellular phone. There was another incident of violence in July 2014. The event of violence which occurred in December led to the father’s arrest. He was released with conditions prohibiting him to communicate with the mother. [ 5 ] Accordingly, the parents are no longer a couple.

The mother testified to the effect that she does not intend to go back with the father and that she informed the father of her intentions. In the past, the parents’ relationship has been rocky with a history of breakups. The mother is in a new relationship, but is not living with her partner. [ 6 ] The last few months have been difficult for the mother. For a while, she was under financial hardship which led to bankruptcy. She then lost her driver’s licence due to unpaid tickets and then she learned that she had cancer.

She was also suspended from her job as an early childhood educator on the same day that she had to testify in a criminal case involving the father. These stresses led her to

relapse into her drug addiction. [ 7 ] Fortunately, she was able to take the necessary steps in order to seek treatment which she completed a week before the hearing. She is now following an aftercare program with a counselor from the Centre A. She is also attending counselling with a psychologist. [ 8 ] The evidence shows that the mother is very resourceful and that she offers an excellent collaboration to the Youth Protection workers.

As the main caregiver of the children, she is described as an attentive and protective mother and she is now conscious of the importance to shield her son’s from domestic violence. [ 9 ] The father has been struggling with drug addiction for some time now. He is contemplating going for treatment, but has yet to take the necessary steps to do so. His addiction prevents him from being there for his sons on a regular basis. Despite his shortcomings, the father-sons bond is quite significant. [ 10 ] Y’s physical, intellectual and affective development seems normal. For his part, X is also developing well.

His regular attendance at daycare has greatly helped him improve his speech. Overall, he is a happy toddler. [ 11 ] Accordingly, the Court is convinced that the security and the development of both children are endangered following the grounds set out by the Director of Youth Protection. APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 12 ] In light of the foregoing the proposed measures which provide among others to entrust the children to the mother, are reasonable. The mother remains fragile, but is getting the help she needs to stabilize her life in order to fulfill her maternal responsibilities.

Her determination and the help of the Director of Youth Protection convince the Court that she is able to provide care and security to both her sons. [ 13 ] As the Court told the father during the hearing, overcoming drug addiction is certainly difficult but the rewards of a healthy life would help him assume his parental responsibilities. The applicant must try to reach out to the father in that regard.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X, born on […], 2010, and Y, born on […], 2013, are endangered pursuant to subparagraph 38 (b) (2) and paragraph 38 (

c) Y.P.A.; [ 16 ] ENTRUSTS both children to the mother; [ 17 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period 12 months; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents play an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents not to consume drugs or alcohol while in the presence of the children; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the children are always in the presence of a responsible adult; [ 21 ] TAKES NOTICE of the father’s consent and therefore ORDERS him to undergo an assessment for his drug and alcohol consumption and to participate in a follow-up with a drug and alcohol counsellor if judged necessary by that professional; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to maintain all her services put in place with professionals for her mental health issues and domestic violence awareness for as long as judged necessary by the said professionals; [ 23 ] ORDERS the mother to inform the Director of Youth Protection of her new relationships and serious roommates within the first 48 hours of the said changes; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to report in person to the Director of Youth Protection at regular intervals in order to keep the director informed of the evolution of his situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that contacts between the children and the father be done under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities; [ 26 ] ALLOWS the exchange of information between all professionals implicated with the family as to the evolution of the situation in general, the patient-professional privilege will remain for the rest; [ 27 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the present judgment; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection or his substitute for the execution of the present judgment.

__________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the DYP M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the children M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: April 8, 2015