2020 QCCQ 13468, 2020 QCCQ 13468

Protection de la jeunesse — 209408 2020 QCCQ 13468 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002525-20 9 DATE: November 23, 2020 (written judgment rendered on January 18, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in [...] 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 [...], 2020, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii and (

c) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child remain with the parents until April 30, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered and she agrees with the measures except for the DYP access to the police occurrence reports. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Villemur. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are endangered under

section 38 (c), but not under

section 38 (b) (1) iii and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Neptune. After hearing the evidence, Me Neptune submits to the Court that the situation of the child is endangered under the alleged grounds and that the recommended measures are in her best interest. Facts [ 6 ] The family is known from the DYP since 2013. X is the fifth child of the parents.

They have one adult son, the second and the third children have been adopted and the fourth one is entrusted until the majority to the adoptive family of the two others. [ 7 ] The parents have a long history of conjugal violence and alcohol consumption issues. They took no steps to address their issues. [ 8 ] The DYP received a report regarding the child on April 20, 2020. [ 9 ] The parents’ situation was very unstable by the past. They were homeless in Town A from July 2015 to May 2017. At that time, they had their two children who were adopted after that. They had alcohol consumption issues.

After being entrusted to a foster family, their children were declared eligible for adoption as the parents did not take steps to address their issues. The fourth child was born while they were in Town A. The child had to be hospitalized because of very serious health issues. His situation had been reported to the DYP on his birth and he is in foster care since that time. The parents continued to be homeless after the birth of the child until June 2019. At that moment they came back in Town B. [ 10 ] The DYP had difficulty to obtain clear information about the parents’ consumption and their conjugal relationship.

The police occurrence reports show that the mother was detained to sober up a few times during her pregnancy. She was also detained to sober up after the birth. The parents were invited to seek help with the Social Services, but they refused, saying that they do not trust the service.

[ 11 ] The police occurrence reports do not show any event of conjugal violence for two years, but on September 2, 2020, the parents came at the DYP office and the mother had a black eye and a cut on her lips. She was reluctant to explain what had happened, but she finished admitting that an event occurred. The child was sleeping and both parents were intoxicated. The father confirmed the situation. [ 12 ] The parents do not have a large network, but they can count on the maternal grandmother who also lives in Town B and is regularly present at the parents’ place.

The mother also has a good reliable friend, but she lives in Town C. This lady confirmed to the DYP worker being available, but unfortunately she does not live in the same village. [ 13 ] The child has a good development, she is a very calm and easy child. For now, the nursing has no reason to fear for her development, but some concerns remain because of the mother’s consumption during the pregnancy. This aspect will have to be kept in mind because some delays are possible in the future.

If some issues are noted, a rapid intervention will have to be done to assess, to address and to implement some measures to reduce the possible consequences of a FASD. [ 14 ] The DYP worker wrote in her report: Both parents have good parental capacities when sober. We observed that both parents deeply care for their daughter. They are able to fulfill all X’s needs. Compared to their previous situation, the parents are making progress in their life in order to achieve stability.

As of today, the situation of the parents seems to be more stable considering that they have a stable place to live, they have the support of the maternal grandmother and friends and compared to the past, they seem to drink less alcohol. The parents now have protective factors that they did not have in the situation of X’s siblings. However, the situation remains fragile. [ 15 ] The mother stays at home and take care of the baby full time. The father works as a firefighter. Both parents are involved in the child’s daily life. They provide her a lot of stimulation, and nothing is reported when they are sober.

Analysis [ 16 ] Both parents recognized a situation of endangerment due to their conjugal relationship. The situation of endangerment due to negligence in terms of educational needs and supervision is contested by the father. When the DYP worker was asked to elaborate on this aspect, she admits not being aware of any event in which the child had been neglected on this accept. [ 17 ] Considering the absence of evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the child suffer from negligence, but the evidence shows that the child is at risk to be a victim of negligence due to their parents’ consumption issues.

As mentioned, they improved a lot compared to the past, but the situation remains fragile and the child has to be protected against this kind of risk. [ 18 ] The parents are doing very well when they are sober. Now they have to realize the impact of their consumption on their personal life, and particularly on their very vulnerable child. [ 19 ] Considering the history of their situation, the Court can understand that the parents could be reluctant to receive services and could be scared to speak about their situation honestly with the DYP worker.

But the Court told them about the importance to mention any issue as soon as possible in a way to address it properly and to resolve it. They should not be scared that their child could be withdrawn from their care. The honesty is required in the best interest of the child. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2020, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (2) and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child remain with the parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection 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 and development of the child are endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol and conjugal and personal issues; [ 27 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ occurrence history or any related police reports of the parents; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] THE WHOLE until April 30, 2021.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 23, 2020