2022 QCCQ 8041, 2022 QCCQ 8041

Protection de la jeunesse — 222391 2022 QCCQ 8041 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002744-214 DATE: February 3, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2021 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...], Applicant and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2021, are in danger under

section 38 b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP alleges that the parent still have alcohol and conjugal violence issues and that the child, who was born prematurely, has special needs that the parents are not currently in position to fulfil. [ 3 ] Therefore, the DYP is asking the Court to entrust X to a foster family until February 3, 2023, and to authorize the gradual reintegration of the child with the parents if the situation allows it. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 4 ] The mother is not present, but she is represented.

Although the mother made some factual admissions, she denies that the security and development of her child are in danger and she is not in agreement with the measures proposed by the DYP. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented. He acknowledges that the security and development of his child are in danger under

section 38 b) (2) and he agrees with the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The child is not present, but she is represented. The child’s lawyer recognizes that her security and development are in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 7 ] The child’s lawyer also submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in the best interests of the child.

Facts [ 8 ] The DYP filed its documentary evidence, and social worker [Social Worker 1] testified as well. [ 9 ] The Court reviewed all the evidence, and this judgment is based on it. [ 10 ] The parents have a long history of DYP involvement in the lives of their older children.

This means that the problems that led the DYP to intervene in X’s life are ones that the parents have been struggling with for quite a long time. [ 11 ] Regardless of the many services that have been offered to the parents over the last few years, they are still struggling with issues of alcohol consumption, and conjugal violence. [ 12 ] Because X was born prematurely on [...], 2021, she was transferred to the Montreal Children’s Hospital to receive specialized

medical services. X was discharged from the hospital on November 17, 2021, and that was when the DYP took an immediate protective measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 13 ] During the child’s hospitalization in Montreal, the mother did not visit her child.

On many occasions, the DYP offered to let her have contact with her daughter by videoconference, but the mother never followed through on those offers. [ 14 ] During the same period, the DYP was also made aware of different circumstances in which the mother was drinking in the presence of her other children or where she was violent towards the father. [ 15 ] On November 2, 2021, the DYP intervene with the mother and noticed that her body was covered with bruises. When confronted with the situation and asked if she was victim of conjugal violence, the mother refused to answer.

She also refused to see a nurse for her injuries nor to meet with the police. [ 16 ] The evidence demonstrates clearly that the mother’s involvement with her daughter since she was born has been basically non- existent.

When the DYP called her on November 17, 2021, and told her that they wanted to meet with her about her daughter X, she immediately answered “oh no” and hung up the phone. [ 17 ] That same day, when the DYP workers went to the mother’s house to meet with her, they noticed that there were around 50 empty beer cans lying around the house and that there was no furniture in the house except for a mattress and a television. [ 18 ] The mother’s absence from the hearing today is another indication that she is disengaged from her daughter’s life. [ 19 ] As for the father, he travelled to Montreal on November 7, 2021, and visited his daughter almost every day while he was in the city. [ 20 ] That being said, his involvement with his daughter did not last after he returned to his village.

Like the mother, he did not attend any of the videoconferences offered by the DYP to stay in contact with his daughter, who was still hospitalized in Montreal. [ 21 ] Furthermore, the documentary evidence establishes that the police had to intervene with the father on a few occasion between July 2 and December 13, 2021, because he was highly intoxicated by alcohol. analysis [ 22 ] Considering the unchallenged evidence presented by the DYP and the factual admissions made by the father, as well as his admission that the security and development of his daughter are in danger according to 38 b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act , the Court concluded that the DYP clearly established that the security and development of X are indeed in danger according to that same section. [ 23 ] Furthermore, the Court also concludes that the parents are not in a position to care for such a young child and, consequently, concludes that the child must be entrusted to a foster family for the next year. [ 24 ] The DYP is asking the Court to authorize a gradual reintegration of the child with the parents if the situation allows it. [ 25 ] It is still possible for the parents to take themselves in hand and make the appropriate changes in their life.

If they do so, the Court will agree with that proposition. [ 26 ] However, it has to be very clear for the parents that due to X’s very young age, she cannot afford to put her life on hold, waiting for her parents to be ready to properly care for her. If they do not take themselves in hand and change their lives over the coming year, it is likely that the DYP will propose measures, next year, aimed at offering X the stability of a long-term life plan. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger under

section 38 (b) (2); [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by an institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 30 ] ORDERS the gradual reintegration of X with the parents if the situation allows it; [ 31 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 37 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate to execution of the enactment. Signed on March 11, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the Applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Me Angèle Tommasel Me Angèle Tommasel, avocate Attorney for the mother Me Michael Pereira Desmarais Desvignes Crespo s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the father Date of hearing: February 3, 2022