2016 QCCQ 8430, 2016 QCCQ 8430

Protection de la jeunesse — 163745 2016 QCCQ 8430 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028076-149 Date: May 6, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 6, 2016, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on April 24, 2014, whereby the now eight year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of her parents with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision and extension dated September 17, 2014, are as follows: 3.1. on August 25, 2014, there was an incident whereby the father was violent with the mother; 3.2. the father was arrested and is facing criminal charges; 3.3. the father has conditions not to communicate and or be in the presence of the mother or the child; 3.4. following the incident the mother went to a shelter for women and stayed there until September 12, 2014; 3.5. while in the shelter the mother disclosed that the father had threatened the child with a knife; 3.6. the father stated that he is not living at the address indicated in his conditions in the criminal court (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and given significant changes since the date of the motion, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to her mother, with the father’s gradual reintegration to the family home when the situation allows, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Thomas, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, also admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures.

[ 7 ] Me Hamel, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, written by [Social Worker 2], date November 25, 2014; D-2: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1], date March 2, 2015; D-3: Attendance record for school year 2014-2015; D-4: Addendum no.2, written by [Social Worker 1], dated August 27, 2015; D-5: Psychological assessment of the mother, written by Dr.

Catherine Cloutier, dated November 12, 2015; D-6: Addendum no.3, written by [Social Worker 1] and [Social Worker 3], dated December 24, 2015; D-7: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1], date April 21, 2016. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 10 ] The parents acknowledge the need to redress the situation and the relatively short recommended duration of the order is intended to motivate them to quickly begin implementing changes either individually or as a couple. [ 11 ] As summarized in the most recent addendum to the Court report : Both Ms. A and Mr.

B have together and separately indicated that they feel as though their marriage has suffered over the past year, to the point that they have a lot of work to do individually and as a couple if they choose to reunite as a family. Mr. B only very recently accepted some responsibility for the deterioration of his marriage and has acknowledged some of the physical abuse his wife has suffered from him. Until early December 2015, he continued to place the brunt of the blame on Ms. A, and maintained he did not have difficulties with conjugal violence for which therapy was required. Ms.

A has begun to stand up for herself and assert herself more. She is able to acknowledge that she has had some difficulties and believes that her husband has difficulties that he must work on as well. Ms. A has very cautiously discussed her husband slowly reintegrating into the family, but is unsure if this is the road she would like to take. However, she continues to vacillate between what she truly wants, and is not able to make concrete and clear decisions about what would be best for herself, her daughter, and her family in general. Both Ms. A and Mr.

B acknowledge that they would need to participate in some form of couple’s counseling before reuniting the family. [2] [ 12 ] On a more positive note, the child is attending school regularly and reportedly loves it. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father will gradually reintegrate the family home, when the situation allows; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child attend school regularly unless excused by a medical note; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by her condition, more particularly that the child participate in art therapy or play therapy and that she undergo a psychological assessment and follow any recommendations that may be made; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek family counselling; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to any type of violence, verbal or physical; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the family follow the recommendations in the psychological assessment completed by Dr.

Catherine Cloutier; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in individual counselling; [ 25 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the steps and undertakings made by the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that the

mother have access to counseling services as quickly as possible; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for [center A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Robert Hamel Attorney for the child Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: November 28 , 2014; January 13 and May 6, 2016 . TD/vl