2017 QCCQ 1060, 2017 QCCQ 1060

Protection de la jeunesse — 17252 2017 QCCQ 1060 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N° : 550-41-002272-167 DATE : 11 janvier 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LA DIRECTRICE DE LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE A Demanderesse et X Enfant et A B En qualité de parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT (Art. 38 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ) ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents. Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J.). [ 1 ] Invoquant une situation de risques sérieux de négligence, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse demande au Tribunal de déclarer compromis la sécurité et le développement de X, âgé de 11 mois. À

titre de mesures, elle recommande notamment de confier l’enfant à sa mère et de prodiguer aide, conseil et assistance à la famille pendant une période de douze mois. [ 2 ] Les parents assistent à l’audience; ils ne s’opposent pas à la demande et consentent aux mesures. [ 3 ] De consentement, la procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse dépose le rapport de l'intervenante afin de compléter le témoignage de cette dernière. Le Tribunal entend aussi C, à

titre de personne intéressée : les parties reconnaissent en effet qu’il est le père biologique de l’enfant. [ 4 ] La preuve révèle les faits suivants. [ 5 ] Avant d’énoncer les faits à l’origine de l’intervention de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse, il convient de dresser un bref portrait du cadre familial qui, en l’espèce, est assez particulier. [ 6 ] Le père biologique de l’enfant, on l’a dit, serait C. Il s’est séparé de la mère au début de la grossesse de cette dernière. A moment de la naissance, celle-ci était en couple avec B.

Ce dernier a assisté à l’accouchement et son nom est inscrit à l’acte de naissance de X comme étant celui du père. [ 7 ] La mère est maintenant séparée de B; elle vit avec un nouveau conjoint. [ 8 ] La filiation paternelle de l’enfant, sur le plan légal, ne correspondrait donc pas à sa filiation biologique. Précisons cependant que monsieur C n’a pas encore entrepris de procédure pour contester la paternité de monsieur B et réclamer l’établissement de la sienne. Il n’a pas, non plus, fait faire d’analyse génétique.

Il affirme cependant avoir l’intention de clarifier son statut et d’assumer ses responsabilités à l’égard de l’enfant. Il n’a toutefois pas eu de contact avec celui-ci durant le dernier mois. Lors de l’audience, il se dit prêt à le voir environ une fois par mois. [ 9 ] Tant que sa paternité n’est pas valablement contestée, B demeure, sur le plan juridique, le père de X. Il a donc, à l’égard de l’enfant, les responsabilités que lui confère le Code civil . Dans les faits, il affirme cependant vouloir jouer le rôle d’un parrain ou d’un oncle. Il n’a eu aucun contact avec son fils depuis le mois de septembre 2016.

[ 10 ] La Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse intervient auprès de cette famille à la suite d’un signalement reçu le 27 mai 2016. [ 11 ] Selon la preuve prépondérante, le 23 mai 2016, la mère confie son fils au père biologique afin que ce dernier puisse le connaître et s’en occuper.

Mais C est arrêté le lendemain; il demande alors à sa sœur de garder l’enfant; celle-ci le confie à un voisin et, le 27 mai, l’enfant est laissé seul chez son père biologique. [ 12 ] Or, le milieu de ce dernier ne convient pas à un jeune enfant : l’appartement est encombré et les lieux sont sales; l’enfant a, sur lui, des punaises de lit. [ 13 ] De plus, selon la preuve prépondérante, les parents mènent une vie instable. Depuis le début de l’intervention de la Directrice, le père biologique a déménagé trois fois.

Il vit maintenant avec sa conjointe dans un appartement qui n’est pas toujours propre; depuis le mois d’octobre, il est le père d’une petite fille. Quant à la mère, elle déménage trois fois durant sa grossesse et plusieurs fois par la suite. En mai 2016, elle vit avec son frère, puis avec un ami. Elle retourne chez son frère jusqu’en juillet 2016 et se trouve par la suite un nouvel appartement qu’elle habite jusqu’au mois d’octobre 2016. Elle déménage alors de nouveau. [ 14 ] Sa vie de couple est, elle aussi, instable. Après s’être séparée de C, au début de sa grossesse, elle vit un certain temps avec B.

Elle quitte ce dernier au mois d’août 2016 et elle partage maintenant sa vie avec un certain monsieur D. [ 15 ] Il faut enfin souligner que la situation financière de la mère est précaire. [ 16 ] La preuve révèle par ailleurs que la mère entretient un lien significatif avec son fils et qu’elle est capable de bien en prendre soin. Elle identifie ses besoins et y répond adéquatement.

Elle ne saisit toutefois pas qu’elle mène une vie instable et que cela peut avoir des conséquences négatives sur l’enfant. [ 17 ] Quant au père légal, il ne connaît pas son fils, mais il est prêt à le voir une fois par mois tout en jouant le rôle d’un parrain. Celui qui serait le père biologique a eu des contacts irréguliers avec l’enfant; il désire toutefois les maintenir et est disposé à recevoir de l’aide pour améliorer ses habiletés parentales. [ 18 ] Évidemment, le fait que la mère ait, en mai dernier, laissé son enfant dans un lieu insalubre et un milieu instable, est inquiétant.

Si l’on conjugue ce fait à l’instabilité des parents et à la confusion relative à sa filiation paternelle, il faut conclure que X court un risque sérieux que ses parents ne répondent pas à ses besoins fondamentaux (art. 38 b) 2 e L.P.J.). D’ailleurs, ces derniers l’admettent.

Le Tribunal leur recommande de clarifier, sur le plan juridique, la filiation paternelle de l’enfant. [ 19 ] Dans ces circonstances, le Tribunal n'a aucune hésitation à déclarer la sécurité et le développement de l’enfant compromis et à faire droit aux mesures de protection suggérées qui, selon la preuve, sont appropriées à ses besoins. [ 20 ] La demande est fondée; elle est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant et respecte ses droits. [ 21 ] THEREFORE THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised for the motives alleged in the said motion; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X be maintained with his mother; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his legal father, Mr.

B, be determined accordingly to an agreement between all parties; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be determined accordingly to an agreement between all parties and in a place designated by the social worker; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body of CISSS[A]/CJ[A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of twelve months; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Youth Protection in order to insure their situation is adequate; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the elaboration and the application of the intervention plan; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the child receive the services required by his state (medical, programme SIPPE-nurse and social worker); [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE, J.C.Q.

M e Sandra Couture Procureure de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse M e Daniel Lessard

Procureur de l'enfant M e André Nault Procureur de la mère Monsieur B père - personnellement Monsieur C Personne intéressée - personnellement Date d’audience : 11 janvier 2017 Protection de la jeunesse — 17252 2017 QCCQ 1060 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 550-41-002272-167 DATE: January 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant and X Child and A B In their capacity as parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [1] Invoking a situation of serious risk of neglect, the Director of Youth Protection is asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X, 11 months old, are in danger.

She recommended as measures, in particular, entrusting the child to his mother and providing aid, counselling and assistance to the family for 12 months. [2] The parents attended the hearing; they did not oppose the application and consented to the measures. [3] With consent, the lawyer for the Director of Youth Protection filed the caseworker’s report in order to supplement her testimony.

The Court also heard C, as interested person; in fact, the parties acknowledge that he is the child’s biological father. [4] The evidence shows the following facts. [5] Before relating the events underlying the intervention by the Director of Youth Protection, it is appropriate to provide a brief description of the family context which, in this case, is rather unusual. [6] C is allegedly the child’s biological father. He separated from the mother early in her pregnancy with X. At the time of his

birth, the mother was in a relationship with B. He was present at the delivery and his name is entered on X’s act of birth as the father’s name. [7] The mother is now separated from B; she is living with a new spouse. [8] Thus the child’s paternal filiation, legally, is not his biological filiation. However, the Court points out that Mr. C has not yet instituted proceedings to contest Mr. B’s paternity or to demand to establish his paternity. He has not had a DNA analysis done either. But he states that he intends to clarify his status and to assume his responsibilities toward the child.

However, he has not had contact with the child over the last month. At the hearing, he said he was ready to see X around once a month. [9] As long as his paternity is not validly contested, B remains X’s legal father. Therefore, he has the responsibilities toward the child conferred on him by the Civil Code of Québec . In actuality, he states that he wants to play the role of a godfather or an uncle.

He has not had contact with his son since September 2016. [10] The Director of Youth Protection became involved with the family following a report received on May 27, 2016. [11] According to the preponderant evidence, on May 23, 2016, the mother entrusted her son to his biological father so that he could get to know him and take care of him.

But C was arrested the next day; he then asked his sister to care for the child; she left him with a neighbour and, on May 27, the child was left alone at his biological father’s. [12] The father’s environment was not appropriate for a young child: the apartment was cluttered and the place was dirty; the child had bedbugs on him. [13] In addition, according to the preponderant evidence, the parents’ life is unstable. The biological father has moved three times since the beginning of the Director’s intervention.

He now lives with his spouse in an apartment that is not always clean; since October, he is the father of a little girl. As for the mother, she moved three times during her pregnancy and a number of times after that. In May 2016, she was living with her brother, then with a friend. She returned to her brother’s until July 2016, and then found a new apartment, where she lived until October 2016. She then moved again. [14] Her relationships are also unstable. After separating from C, early in her pregnancy, she lived for a while with B. She left him in August 2016 and now shares her life with a certain Mr.

D. [15] Last, it must be pointed out that the mother’s financial situation is precarious. [16] The evidence also shows that the mother has a significant bond with her son and that she is able to care well for him. She identifies his needs and meets them adequately. However, she does not understand that her life is unstable and that it can have negative consequences for the child. [17] As for the legal father, he does not know his son, but is ready to see him once a month and to play the role of godfather.

The man who is allegedly the biological father has had irregular contact with the child; however, he wants to maintain contact and is ready to receive help to improve his parenting skills. [18] Obviously, the fact that last May the mother left her child in an unsanitary and unstable environment is worrisome. Given that, as well as the parents’ instability and the confusion regarding the child’s paternal filiation, it must be concluded that X runs a serious risk that his parents are not meeting his basic needs (s. 38( b )

(2) Y.P.A.). Further, they admit it.

The Court recommends that they legally clarify the child’s paternal filiation. [19] In the circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in declaring that the security and development of the child are in danger and in allowing the suggested protective measures, which, according to the evidence, are suited to his needs. [20] The motion is founded; it is in the child’s interest and in keeping with his rights. [The following passage appears in English in the original French-language judgment.] [21] THEREFORE THE COURT: [22] GRANTS the motion; [23] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised for the motives alleged in the said motion; [24] ORDERS that X be maintained with his mother; [25] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his legal father, Mr.

B, be determined accordingly to an agreement between all parties; [26] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be determined accordingly to an agreement between all parties and in a place designated by the social worker; [27] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body of CISSS[A]/CJ[A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of twelve months; [28] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Youth Protection in order to insure their situation is adequate; [29] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the elaboration and the application of the intervention plan;

[30] RECOMMENDS that the child receive the services required by his state (medical, programme SIPPE-nurse and social worker); [31] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. Mtre. Sandra Couture Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Daniel Lessard Counsel for the child Mtre. André Nault Counsel for the mother B Father – Representing himself C Interested person - Representing himself Date of hearing: January 11, 2017