2016 QCCQ 17117, 2016 QCCQ 17117

Protection de la jeunesse — 168164 2016 QCCQ 17117 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 640-41-002053-160 640-41-002054-168 640-41-002055-165 640-41-002056-163 640-41-002057-161 640-41-002058-169 DATE: December 15, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2006 Y, born on [...], 2008 Z, born on [...], 2010 A, born on [...], 2011 B, born on [...], 2015 C, born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A Applicant and D, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Mother and E, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 , 75 , 76.1 and 91 , Youth Protection Act, CQLR, c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 A submits to the Court six motions asking that the security and development of C, 6 months old, X, 10 years old, Y, 8 years old, Z, 6 years old, A, 5 years old, and B, 1 ½ years old, all children of D and E, be declared in danger in regards of

section 38 (

c) and (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [1] [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present and assisted by Mtre. Joanie Jacob. The mother is absent, but represented by Mtre. Angèle Tommasel. The children are represented by Mtre. Marie-Claude De Gagné and Mtre. Aubrée Coutanson assists the applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1]. [ 3 ] The mother is absent because she accompanied her baby in Montreal for medical purpose. Her lawyer is in position to inform the Court of her admissions and declares that she agrees with the measures recommended in the social study filed. [ 4 ] The father also admits most of the allegations and agrees with the measures.

[ 5 ] The oldest children are not in position to make admission, but they confirmed to their lawyer that they were victims of the father’s violence. [ 6 ] It is proved that the parents have a history of alcohol and conjugal violence issues. Since 2013, they have been evaluated few times by the DYP workers, but they always ended up closing the files. [ 7 ] Last September 29, 2016, the social worker went to their house after receiving a call mentioning that the parents were drunk and fighting .

They found the mother with a black eye. [ 8 ] The mother has no family support in the community and she is afraid of leaving her children behind if she would attend a treatment for alcohol abuse. [ 9 ] On October 3, 2016, the social worker went to the parents’ house to meet the mother, but she asked the worker to leave the house immediately because the father will get angry if he sees the worker.

The mother said that there would be no conjugal violence if the father ignores about the presence of the DYP worker in their house. [ 10 ] A similar situation occurred on October 4, 2016 when the social worker went to the school in order to talk with the children. The school principal told the worker that the father, who works at the school, might get really upset if he knows that his children met the DYP worker. [ 11 ] Considering the evidence, the Court declares the security and the development of the children in danger.

Proceeding to the applicable measures, the social worker filed her social study and testifies. [ 12 ] She recommends that the children remain with the parents because, since the provisional judgment, the parents offered a good collaboration and get themselves and the children available when required. [ 13 ] The father acknowledges that he has serious problem with alcohol and that he must receive services to slow down. He wants to do everything needed to keep his children.

He works regularly at school and her wife stays home to take care of the youngest children. [ 14 ] The father is convinced that the conjugal violence is caused by the abuse of alcohol consumption. So, if they reduce and/or stop their consumption, their milieu will become safe and secure for the children. He and his wife are welling to seek help for their issues. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 15 ] DECLARES the security and the development of C, X, Y, Z, A and B in danger in regards of

section 38 (

c) and (

e) ii. of the Youth Protection Act ; [2] [ 16 ] REMAINS the children with the parents; [ 17 ] ORDERS the parents to meet regularly the social worker and to cooperate actively with the DYP worker; [ 18 ] AUTHORIZES the social worker to make unannounced visits at the family’s household; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to remain sober in presence of the children; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services for their alcohol consumption and conjugal violence problems; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the children until November 9, 2017; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Marie-Claude De Gagné Attorney for the children Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Mtre. Joanie Jacob Attorney for the father

Date of hearing: November 10, 2016