2014 QCCQ 14772, 2014 QCCQ 14772

Protection de la jeunesse — 142931 2014 QCCQ 14772 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000640-144 DATE: July 7, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2001 SOCIAL WORKER1 , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […],in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant A , residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing at [Detention Center A] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 applicant asks the Court to declare the security or development of the youth X endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2°,

c) and e) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] If the Court declares the security or development of the youth endangered pursuant to the law the applicant recommends that the youth be entrusted to the mother and different other measures for a period of 18 months. [ 3 ] The youth and the mother are present and represented by a lawyer. [ 4 ] The youth and the mother challenged the duration of the measures. Both of them ask the Court to order measures for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The father is absent. He was represented by Me Ouellette. He is detained at [Detention Center B].

On April 7, 2014, he was served with a copy of the petition. The applicant, Mrs [Social Worker 1] tried to get in touch with him on April 7, 16 and 30. He never called her back. [ 6 ] Considering all the evidence the Court grants the permission to the parties to proceed in the father's absence. [ 7 ] The youth and the mother admit most of the allegations of the motion. They both admit that the youth's situation is compromised pursuant to the law. [ 8 ] The Court considers that the following facts are proven by preponderant evidence.

The facts [ 9 ] The youth and the mother admit that the adolescent is exposed to conjugal violence. [ 10 ] For that reason, among others, he has been the object of agreements on voluntary measures from August 2008 to August 2010. [ 11 ] Recently, the adolescent's situation was once again reported to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 12 ] On or about February 27, 2014 while the youth was present at home a violent quarrel occurred between the parents. It would have been an outburst of jealousy from the father.

During that fight the father hit the mother many times. [ 13 ] The police was called and found the mother lying on the bathroom floor. She was badly injured. She couldn't move her hand and was in shock. She was brought to the hospital and stayed hospitalised for four days. Her arm wasn't broken and was put in a sling. She was also badly bruised.

[ 14 ] According to the police report it is said that there were breach of probation, breach of conditions, armed aggression and assault. [ 15 ] The father is detained since those events occurred. [ 16 ] According to the mother it was the first time the youth witnessed her being hit. [ 17 ] However it was not the first time that she was involved in violent quarrels with the father and though was hospitalised because of them. [ 18 ] This situation of violence is a very serious problem not only because the parents insult each other and demonstrate physical violence in the adolescent's presence but because this problem has been present for close to ten years. [ 19 ] The mothers didn't register a complaint against the father each time.

She refused many times to testify against him. [ 20 ] The mother would have been submitted to a cycle of conjugal violence for many years which, she acknowledges, also occurred before meeting the youth's father. She also has been a victim of conjugal violence during her relationship with the father of her two older sons. [ 21 ] On April 8, 2013 judge McKenna entrusted the youth to his mother as a provisional measure.

The mother admits that on that date she was undecided concerning her relationship with the father. [ 22 ] In September 2013, she resumed her relationship with the father because they both agreed to seek help for their problems and to recover from addiction. She even thought about asking the Court to remove the conditions that prevent the father from contacting her. Between September 2013 and February 2014 they sought help from a psychologist.

Then the February event occurred. [ 23 ] On May 9, during the women's gathering the mother realised that her relationship must be terminated. [ 24 ] She enrolled herself in the six weeks [Program A]. She had also enrolled the youth in the [ Program B] offered by the [Center B]. [ 25 ] Since the father is incarcerated he didn't try to contact her. [ 26 ] The mother suffered also from depression and had suicidal behaviours. During summer 2007 she would have attempted suicide by taking pills. During the same summer she was hospitalised because of threats of suicide.

She had also burned her personal effects in the backyard. She sought help by taking medication for her mood swings (Celexa 20 mg). For the past two years she seems to be feeling better. [ 27 ] As to the mother having a problem of addiction the evidence revealed that she had a follow-up with the [Center C] from 2007 to 2009 for a dependency to prescription drugs.

According to the mother she had ceased consuming psychoactive substances during 2005. [ 28 ] Concerning the father, the mother said that he was sober for a long period during the last year and that in the past he would have participated in many A.A. meetings. His criminal record shows convictions for impaired driving offences between 1994 and 2011. [ 29 ] The father has also a history of violence.

His criminal record shows many convictions for different types of violent behaviours such as death threats, assault with a weapon, assault on a peace officer, etc. [ 30 ] For the past few years, the father is in and out of prison. The parents tend to separate and resume their relationship. According to the mother they were separated between 2001 and 2004. Their relationship was unstable between 2005 and 2013 and they resumed being a couple in 2014. According to the mother their relationship is over now. [ 31 ] According to the mother when they were a couple the father was involved in the youth's life.

Otherwise he was totally absent from his son's life. [ 32 ] The youth is 12 years old. He has a good health. He suffers from a problem of concentration in class. He was diagnosed with TDAH for which he takes Ritalin. [ 33 ] There would have been two episode of violence at school. Around February 21, 2014 following an outburst of anger the youth would have stabbed a classmate in the arm with a pencil. According to the youth that child had been intimidating him for at least a year.

The youth had to spend one week at home (his homework and lessons were brought to him) and he was not referred to a suspension. [ 34 ] Then in the school bus, a child would have teased and verbally provoked him. Then it resulted in a physical altercation when leaving the school bus. The youth admitted having punched the child in the back of the head. [ 35 ] According to the mother these were the two first violent incidents involving the youth. Now the youth is participating in a program offered by the school, to wit, the [Center D]. [ 36 ] The bond between the youth and his mother is very solid and beneficial.

It seems also that some maternal aunts may offer to the youth some support. [ 37 ] The mother and the youth receive also the support of [Social Worker 3], a social worker at the [Center E]. The youth receives also services from a social worker [Social Worker 2] as well as the services from an organization working in conjugal violence. [ 38 ] As to the father, the youth does not have any contact with him since he has been in a detention center since last February 28. The youth expresses his feeling of anger towards his father and being afraid of him. He mentioned never wanting to see him anymore.

However he had a positive relationship with his father in the past.

Analysis and decision [ 39 ] The only challenge is the duration of the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 40 ] The evidence is preponderant that the dynamics between the parents is seriously marked by verbal and physical violence as well as by instability. [ 41 ] It is a recurrent problem of exposure to conjugal violence caused by the father. It exposes the youth to violent scenes between his parents.

He witnessed that violence. [ 42 ] During the last two moths the mother assumes the complete custody of the youth because of the father's detention. [ 43 ] The Court notices a remarkable engagement on the mother's part. In an effort to change the mother surrounded herself of workers offering helps related to her personal problems. [ 44 ] Until recently the mother was undecided concerning her relationship with the father.

For the very first time she has decided to end up their relationship. [ 45 ] The mother's efforts are to her advantage and in the youth's interest. [ 46 ] The evidence is preponderant that the youth's security or development is endangered pursuant to the law. [ 47 ] The Court understands that the mother is confident to solve her family's situation by herself. The Court understands also that she wants to work with her own people. [ 48 ] However this is also a situation where the security or development of the youth is endangered.

The Court's orders must be first in his best interest and then to help the mother to sustain her efforts to improve their situation. [ 49 ] The youth and his mother live in a recurrent situation of violence. The Court concludes that the youth and her mother need Youth Protection's support on a long-term basis because of the recurrence of the facts that endangered the youth's situation. [ 50 ] They will need that support to face the moment where the father will get out of jail. The Court concludes that a period of 15 months is appropriate and in the youth's best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 51 ] Grants partly the motion; [ 52 ] Declares that the security and development of X, born on […], 2001 are in danger, pursuant to sections 38 b) 2, 38

c) and 38 e) 2° of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 53 ] The following measures are ordered for 15 months; [ 54 ] Orders that X be entrusted to his mother; [ 55 ] Orders to the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the contacts between the youth and his father as for modalities, frequency and length.

Those contacts should be in the presence of a third party if necessary and considering the youth's opinion; [ 56 ] Orders the parents to remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 57 ] Prohibits the parents to be together in the presence of the youth; [ 58 ] Orders to the Director of Youth Protection to provide to the youth all the necessary services he need for his health; [ 59 ] Recommends the mother to follow any program concerning conjugal violence or any personal issue; [ 60 ] Orders the mother to fully cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection and to inform him about her and the youth situations at least twice a month; [ 61 ] Orders the mother to advise the Director of Youth Protection within a delay of 24 hours of any contact or visit at home from the father; [ 62 ] Orders that a person working for an organism or establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the parents; [ 63 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother's and the youth's consents and recommends the exchange of pertinent information between professional working with the family; [ 64 ] Orders any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders; [ 65 ] Entrusts the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders.

__________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q. Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the youth Me André Levasseur, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 16, 2014