2020 QCCQ 13565, 2020 QCCQ 13565

Protection de la jeunesse — 209360 2020 QCCQ 13565 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002532-205 DATE: November 27, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 18, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, unknown address in [...] Mother And B , residing in [...] Interested Party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the child to Mr. B, until November 30, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. The special clerk authorized the DYP to serve the application via the newspapers which was done on November 12, 2020. The mother was also informed by phone about the date of the hearing and said that she does not plan to be present. During this phone call, the mother refused to give her phone number and her address to be reached.

The Court proceed in her absence. [ 4 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits to the Court that her situation is endangered under the alleged grounds and that the recommended measures are in her best interest, but considers that such a long measure is not necessary to end the situation of endangerment. Facts [ 5 ] X was born from the union of Ms. A and Mr. B, but the biological father is undeclared on the birth certificate. [ 6 ] The mother has another son, aged of 4 years old who had been entrusted to a foster family until his majority.

He is living in the South of the province of Quebec. At the birth of X, the mother was living with her adoptive mother, Ms. C. Her biological mother, Ms. D is also involved in her life. [ 7 ] Mr. B had two other children from a previous union, Suzie who is deceased and Sebastien who always lived with his mother. Mr. B is surrounded by his father, Mr. E, his aunt, Ms. F and his maternal grandparents. At the time of the birth, Mr. B who comes from Town A like the mother, was living in Town B. [ 8 ] In the situation of X, the DYP received four reports starting on August 7, 2019.

The first one was regarding a risk of neglect because of the mother’s substance abuse. The mother was suspected of having consumed alcohol a few days before birth.

[ 9 ] The second report received on January 25, 2020, was regarding a situation of neglect in terms of supervision and psychological ill-treatment. The mother had called the police officer to tell them that she planned to drink and she was with the child. They try to convince her to find a babysitter, but she refused. They look for her and once they found her, she was already highly intoxicated in the presence of the child. X was entrusted to his paternal aunt on an immediate protective measure. [ 10 ] The third one , dated on March 5, 2020, was regarding the same grounds.

This situation started on February 19 when the mother arrived in Town B with the child without notice. Mr. B booked a hotel for her to be well, and after a few days the couple went to live at Mr. B’s sister’s place. As Mr. B worked full time, the mother was alone with the baby and had difficulty to adapt to life in Montreal. On March 5, while Mr. B was at work, she called him to let him know that she had booked a plane ticket to go back in Town A. She appeared intoxicated at that time. He quit his job immediately and went to the hotel where the mother was waiting for her plane.

She was indeed intoxicated, but her sister was there and sober. At one point the mother was too intoxicated and punches her sister in the presence of the baby. Mr. B took the baby and left with him to protect him. A few days later, the mother confirmed that she was intoxicated at that time. She stayed in Montreal a few more days, but made arrangements for her biological mother to go back to Town A with the baby. [ 11 ] The biological maternal grandmother, Ms.

D is known to also have alcohol consumption issues, but she ensures the DYP worker that she would take good care of her grandson until her daughter been back and promised not to drink. [ 12 ] A fourth report was received on March 18, 2020, and was about another situation of neglect in terms of supervision while the child was still with Ms. D. She had consumed in the presence of the child. At that time, X was entrusted to the specialized foster family. [ 13 ] Mr. B was called the day after to inform him about the situation. He immediately book a plane ticket and came back living in Town A.

He was there the next day. [ 14 ] On May 14, 2020, after concluding that the security and development of the child were endangered for neglect in terms of supervision, for psychological ill-treatment and for risk of physical abuse due to the domestic violence, a provisional agreement was made with the parents. The child remained under their care for one month. [ 15 ] A fifth report was received on May 25, 2020, regarding a situation of physical abuse from the mother and psychological ill- treatment. During that event, the mother assaulted Mr.

B while she was intoxicated and she punched the child in the stomach accidentally. The police had to intervene, the mother was arrested and detained for assault and for breach of conditions. On June 15, the DYP concludes that the facts were founded and the security and development of the child were endangered under those grounds. [ 16 ] The mother remained detained in Leclerc until the end of August 2020. During that time, the child was entrusted to Mr. B under a voluntary measure signed by the mother and Mr. B.

The biological father was taking good care of the child and made sure to fulfill all his needs in terms of lodging, food, affection and stimulation. [ 17 ] Regarding the extended family, the biological maternal grandmother, Ms. D recognized that she made a mistake by drinking alcohol in the presence of the child. The adoptive maternal grandmother is also struggling with addiction to alcohol and hard drugs. Also, when it was time to find a foster family for the oldest son of the mother, no one in her family was able to foster him.

On their side, the paternal grandparents said being too old to take care of the child. [ 18 ] The mother recognizes having a drinking issue, but she has difficulty to understand and to realize the impact of this consumption on her son and on her ability to take care of him properly. The mother succeeded Isuarsivik Treatment Program, but she relapsed soon after having finished. She still speaks about the desire to address her issues, but she does not take steps to achieve this goal. She also recognizes having an anger management issue and becoming aggressive when she consumes. [ 19 ] Mr.

B recognizes his criminal record, but he wants to now have a better life and to offer a safe environment to the child. He demonstrated during all the evaluation process that the child is his priority. [ 20 ] Starting on July 6, 2020, the mother called numerous times the DYP worker while she was still in detention. Each time, she said being worried about the child’s well-being at Mr. B’s place as she was convinced that the child was not well taken care. Each time, the DYP went to Mr. B’s place to make spot checks and each time, the house was clean and safe, Mr.

B was sober and the child was doing very well. [ 21 ] Unfortunately, one event happened on August 4, 2020, when Mr. B was arrested for an assault on his girlfriend. Both were intoxicated at that time and X was present. The child was entrusted to his paternal aunt for the night. The day after, Mr. B was regretting having consumed in the house and ensured that such situation will not happen again as he will not tolerate any more people drinking in his house while the child is there. [ 22 ] The mother was released by the end of August, and after her quarantine in Montreal, she came back in the village.

The same night, she presented herself at Mr. B’s place intoxicated. As she was calm, he let her come. She went in X’s room and woke him. The child was scared, he cried and the mother left. The next day, she went to the DYP office saying that she does not agree anymore with the voluntary measures and that she wanted her son back under her care as soon as possible. [ 23 ] Following that the DYP worker had difficulty to reach the mother despite many attempts. On September 18, she had been informed by Mr. B that the mother had left the village. She could be in Town C or in Town B.

On November 10, the mother had called the DYP worker once and it is at that moment that she was informed verbally about the date of hearing. [ 24 ] Since that time, the mother’s situation remained unknown. [ 25 ] As mentioned, the mother saw her son when she came at Mr. B’s place in September. She also saw him once in August, but the contact was not positive. Doing so, the last positive contact between the child and his mother was in May 2020. [ 26 ] Mr. B is currently in a relationship with a new girlfriend, but they do not live together because Mr. B would like to make

renovation in his house before. Indeed, he would like to improve one of the bedrooms to welcome his girlfriend’s daughter properly. His girlfriend is taking good care of X. [ 27 ] Mr. B has a regular follow-up with the Social Services for his personal issues, but also to help him with the recognizance of paternity and for the application for family allowances. Analysis [ 28 ] For now, the father is undeclared. The situation of the mother, the only one legal parent, is endangering the situation of the child.

Indeed, the mother can come back at any time and with the previous events it is obvious that she would not be able to ensure her child’s safety. [ 29 ] During the past months, she put her child in danger a few times and the Court has no hesitation to declare that the situation of the child is endangered under

section (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 YPA. [ 30 ] By chance, the undeclared father, did not hesitate to quit the life he was trying to create in Town B, to come back in Town A to take care full time of the child. The day after the phone call, he was in Town A and since that time, except one event, Mr. B is taking very good care of his child and no concerns were raised. [ 31 ] Mr. B is seeking for the appropriate services, he collaborates well and he is well surrounded by helpful family members. [ 32 ] It is in the best interest of the child to be entrusted specifically to Mr. B.

Regarding the duration of the measures, the Court agrees with the DYP suggestion considering the interested party is still not recognized as father and this process could be long. Indeed, the mother is difficult to be reached and if it is impossible to obtain her signature, Ms. B will have to file a Court application at the Superior Court which could take a long time before making a decision as the Superior Court is sitting in Town D, not in Town A.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mr. B; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr. B undertake the necessary procedures to be recognized as the father of the child; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and Mr.

B seek help through the Social Services concerning their substance abuse, conjugal violence and anger management issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the contact between the mother and the child be supervised by a third party designed by the DYP and the modalities (frequency, degree of supervision and the duration) be determined upon agreement between the parties; or failing that, that the contacts are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection make unannounced visits to ensure the security of the child; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child

Date of hearing: November 27, 2020