2011 QCCQ 19591, 2011 QCCQ 19591

Protection de la jeunesse — 118961 2011 QCCQ 19591 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-024396-111 Date: October 18, 2011 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 18, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on June 22, 2011, whereby the now two year-old child, X , was entrusted to his mother, on the condition that she continue to receive support and services from the [Shelter A] program as well as aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The mother then agreed to undergo a substance abuse assessment and to submit to random drug testing.

In addition, the mother was authorized to travel to Town A with the child for a period of two weeks during the summer under a number of conditions intended to ensure the child's safety. [ 4 ] The motion for revision is based on the following allegations: 3.1 the youth protection worker last saw the mother at the end of July 2011 and was unable to reach the mother since; 3.2. the [Shelter A] has not heard from the mother for the last two (2) to three (3) months;

3.3. on September 6 th , 2011, the mother called the father and confirmed that she was up North with the child and that she had no intentions of coming back to Town B; 3.4. the mother did not specify her exact whereabouts; 3.5. on September 7 th , 2011, the court issued a warrant under

section 35.2 of the Youth Protection Act; 3.6. on September 8 th , 2011, the child was found in Town A; 3.7. the mother claimed that she went there because of an emergency with her fifteen (15) years old daughter; 3.8. the mother had no return ticket for herself or the child; 3.9. when questioned about her whereabouts for the pas two (2) to three (3) months, the mother said that she was in Town C; 3.10. the mother does not want to receive services from the [Shelter A]; 3.11. the mother intends to reside up North and does not intend to participate in the court ordered measures; 3.12. immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to the father, who also has the child's younger siblings under his care (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to his father, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The mother, assisted by Me Bourdeau, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion.

However, she disagreed with the proposed measures and asked to be entrusted with the care of her son. She indicated that she wanted to bring him to Town A with her where they could live with her brother. [ 7 ] The father, assisted by Me Thomas, also admitted most of the alleged facts and approved of the Director's position. [ 8 ] Me Gauthier, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but also approved of the measures proposed by the Director. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibit D-1 as evidence: D-1: Court report by [Social Worker 1], dated October 11th, 2011. [ 10 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the mother failed to respect each and every measure of the previous court order. [ 11 ] She neglected to follow through with a substance abuse assessment and failed to collaborate with an assigned educator. [ 12 ] The [Shelter A] has reportedly had no contact with the mother since June.

Consequently, it appears that the mother stopped receiving support and services from them within days of the previous judgement. [ 13 ] She took the child to Town A without ensuring any social follow-up while there, without a return ticket and without providing an address, as required. [ 14 ] Moreover, the father testified that he does not want his child in the maternal grand-parents' home given the paternal grand- father's history of child molesting. He also described incidences he witnessed of extreme violence in the home while he was there.

The mother did not deny the violence but explained that forgiveness is very important in her culture. [ 15 ] It must also be recalled that the mother's own description of her family background as reported in the parental capacity assessment confirms the father's cause for concern: Ms. A was born in Town D, [Province A], but lived most of her life in Town A, Quebec. Her father, C (63), is a retired Mineworker and her mother, D (61), is a Daycare Worker. She describes her parents' relationship as on and off, just like she has with Mr. B.

She also has 4 older brothers and an older sister who all live in [Province B]. Ms. A describes her childhood as being lonely and scared as her mother ran away often because she was being beaten up by her (sic) Mr. A frequently, who was an alcoholic. Her father also smokes marijuana as do her 4 brothers. Ms.

A reported that she witnessed the physical abuse of her mother on several occasions, but that she herself was never abused physically or sexually. [1] [ 16 ] Given the mother's demonstrated unwillingness to abide by court ordered measures or to offer any effective collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection to ensure the child's safety it is impossible to entrust her with the care of her son. [ 17 ] Moreover, the mother acknowledged that the idea of bringing her son to live in Town A with her brother only occurred to her at lunchtime, before the hearing, which explains why the Delegate had not heard of, or taken steps to investigate, the possibility prior to the hearing. [ 18 ] In addition, the child's siblings are with their father and the father has shown a great degree of commitment to caring for his children.

He also has the support of his parents and sister and understands the need to protect the children from being exposed to conflict and violence. [ 19 ] The situation is heartbreaking for the family as the father acknowledges that his son loves and misses his mother. He also appears very saddened that both parents are unable to resolve their difficulties and raise their very young children together.

[ 20 ] To the parents' credit, despite their differences, they do not appear to blame or belittle one another. On the contrary, they seem protective and empathetic towards each other. [ 21 ] The mother also clearly loves her children. However, she is torn between her children in Town B, and her older children in Town A. At the hearing, she indicated that she has resolved to return to Town A where she feels her older daughter needs her.

She has secured a job replacing someone on maternity leave and hopes to make enough money to return to Town B next year with her older daughter. [ 22 ] In the interim, she hopes to visit her children in Town B as often as possible. [ 23 ] The mother is to be encouraged to maintain frequent, consistent contact with her children and to take steps, as previously recommended in her parental capacity assessment, to address her difficulties to be able to be as present as possible in her children's lives. [ 24 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest. [ 25 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 28 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to his father, at the exclusion of his mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the mother and the child be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision, if deemed necessary; [ 30 ] ORDERS that such contacts be encouraged as much as possible, taking into account the mother's trips to Town A whenever possible, should she choose to return to Town B as stated; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to any type of verbal or physical violence; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, including receiving services from an educator; [ 33 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father's collaboration has already begun to that effect; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo of a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations that may be made; [ 35 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of her expressed intention to do so, despite her failure to do so in the past; [ 36 ] ORDERS that both parents not be under the influence of any non-prescribed drugs or medication while in the presence of the child; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents' consent to undergo random drug and alcohol testing, and consequently, ORDERS that they do so; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child receive required health care services, more particularly necessary dental care; [ 39 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that a bilingual worker be assigned to work with the family; [ 41 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in the parental capacity assessment dated June 16, 2011; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F. Loranger / AI0942 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michèle Gauthier / AG7089 Attorney for the child Me Martine Bourdeau / AB0GM1 Attorney for the mother Me Jean-Hervé Thomas / AT8560 Attorney for the father TD/vl