r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 19389

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610167 2016 QCCQ 19389 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005194-165 760-41-005195-162 DATE: December 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2015 Y , born [...], 2014 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges a situation of endangerment concerning the siblings Y and X, stemming from educational and physical neglect in their maternal environment. [ 2 ] Initially seeking protective measures maintaining the children in their mother’s care, the Director eventually revises its position to request their entrustment to family members and supervised contacts with their parents, and this, in view of the persistence of the neglect despite rehabilitative services. [ 3 ] The parents consign their admissions and subscribe to the orientation put forth. [ 4 ] X’s birth certificate is produced in the Court file after the hearing, confirming that her paternity is undeclared, notwithstanding that the evidence designates Mr.

B in a paternal role in the proceedings, reports and testimonies. Consequently, the oral judgment makes no distinction as to sibling’s filiation and such will also be the case in the present. [ 5 ] The children’s attorney, in virtue of a legal mandate, considers that the Director’s evaluation respects the children’s needs and best interests. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] On January 8, 2016, the Director retains a report of physical neglect concerning the children.

At that time, the children reside with their parents. [ 8 ] In May, the family moves to [province A] and the follow-up is referred to Family and Children’s Services of their new region. [ 9 ] The evaluations conclude to the following elements affecting the children’s security and development: • An inappropriate living environment (cleanliness, security);

• Frequent residential changes; • Neglect as to the children’s physical needs; • Lack of routine; • Exposure to domestic violence; • The father’s history of sexual misconduct towards a child (prison sentence) • The father’s drug use (cannabis, speed); • Lack of cooperation of the family environment as to the services; [ 10 ] Y presents language and motor skill delays. Both children require stimulation on the motor and intellectual plan. [ 11 ] In July, there is a police intervention at the home in regards to domestic violence. The father assaults the mother in the presence of the children.

Charged with uttering threats, assault and resisting arrest, he is bound by a restraining order as to the mother. [ 12 ] Repeated surprise visits show no appreciable improvement as to the children’s situation and the living environment. [ 13 ] The parents end their relationship, following which the children remain with their mother. The mother undertakes a relationship with Mr. C, who has a history of sexual abuse towards minors. [ 14 ] The father’s situation is unstable on multiple levels.

Following the parent’s separation, the father is little involved with the children. [ 15 ] On August 10, 2016, the Family Court A (City

A) renders a temporary supervision order in regards to the children, stipulating specific measures ensuring that the mother provide adequate care to the children and ensure a proper living environment. As for the father, he is to undertake services as to his drug and alcohol consumption and engage in counselling/treatment to address related to his sexual offence history. Supervision is put in place as to the children’s access to their father. (Judgment, exhibit D-5) [ 16 ] Following this judgment, the mother returns to Quebec.

The Director of Youth Protection re-intervenes and observes that the previous problematic issues remain active. [ 17 ] The mother integrates a woman’s shelter in September. Numerous services are put in place in order to accompany the rehabilitation of the family situation and ensure a safe and stable environment for the children. The mother states no longer being in a relationship with Mr. C. [ 18 ] On October 11, 2016 the Court renders an interim order following a declaration of endangerment stemming from physical and educational neglect.

As measures, the Court entrusts the children to their mother conditional to her residing in a woman’s shelter and receiving services from the Director. The children’s contacts with their father remain under supervision. [ 19 ] Despite the services offered to the mother on an interim basis, the elements of neglect persist. At the shelter, she shows motivation, but fails to consistently apply structure and routine as to her children’s basic needs. She easily gets overwhelmed and lacks critical judgment. [ 20 ] Eventually, the mother resumes her relationship with Mr. C.

She initially hides this fact from the workers, and once confronted, mentions not putting her children in his presence. [ 21 ] At the hearing on the final measures, the Director revises its recommendations, namely in seeking the children’s placement with family members and supervised access with their parents, the whole within a 6-month order. Both the parents and the children’s attorney, by legal mandate, subscribe to this modified orientation. [ 22 ] The mother struggles with personal issues impeding her ability to respond to her children’s needs on a daily basis.

Her choices lead to her children being repeatedly put at risk by being in the proximity of adults with histories of sexual deviance, a situation which the mother fails to fully comprehend. [ 23 ] The evidence demonstrates that the mother needs to focus on the rehabilitation of her parental capacities and learn to put her children’s needs above her own.

In the interim, the children require environments which can ensure their safety and development. [ 24 ] As for the father, the intervention will focus on his attending to the various personal issues which impede his ability to be a consistent part of his children’s lives. Namely, that he undertake therapies as to his drug consumption and violence, as well as maintain a stable lifestyle. [ 25 ] The father cooperates with social services and is able to recognize his difficulties.

He wishes to work towards resuming contacts with his children and accepts the Director’s intervention plan, which is to ensure his ability to remain a consistent and positive presence in their lives. [ 26 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reasons of physical and educational neglect;

[ 29 ] ORDERS that the child Y be entrusted to his maternal great grand-mother, Mrs. D; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child X be entrusted to her maternal aunt, Mrs. E; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be following an agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third person chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 35 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the applicants Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Dates of hearing: October 11 and December 5, 2016