2015 QCCQ 8857, 2015 QCCQ 8857

Protection de la jeunesse — 15715 2015 QCCQ 8857 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 610-41-000635-144 DATE: January 16, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection exercising her profession at the [Centre A], having a place of business […] in Town A, district A Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at […] Town B, district A Mother and B , residing and domiciled, at […] Town B, district 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 Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend the orders rendered on March 20, 2014. On that date the Court declares the security or development of the child born on […], 2012, endangered pursuant to

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act . The Court ratifies a draft agreement signed by all the parties. [ 2 ] The applicant asks the Court to entrust the child to his mother with other relevant measures for a period of 12 months if the Court concludes that the child's situation is still compromised. [ 3 ] Both parents are presents and represented.

They admit that the security or development of their child is still compromised and they agree with the applicant's recommendations concerning the applicable measures. [ 4 ] The child is represented. [ 5 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. Facts [ 6 ] Since the family is under the Director of Youth Protection's follow-up, conflicts between the parents are frequent. The Centre de santé et de services sociaux tried to arrange for the parents some services for couple counselling.

However it was impossible because of some personal limitations of the parents and the request for English speaking services. [ 7 ] On or around August 9, in the evening the mother went to a bar in Town B to party. On or about August 10, she came back home in the morning and was under the influence of alcohol. When she arrived she had a fight with the father while the child was at home. [ 8 ] During the fight the mother locked herself in the bathroom and tried to cut her wrists.

The police was called and had to intervene to bring her to the hospital. [ 9 ] The Youth Protection worker tried to find the father and the children but were not able to locate them. [ 10 ] Soon after the visit of the police the Youth Protection worker had a conversation with the father. He admitted that he was using drugs three times a week but that it was not an issue for him. He still admits today that he uses small amounts of cannabis but not in front of the children.

He also said that he used drugs with the mother. [ 11 ] When she was at the hospital the mother explained to the social worker that she has delays to pay her rent because she has to provide the father with money to pay his drugs.

[ 12 ] The mother also expressed to the social worker that she was thinking of going to a Women's shelter in Town C to get help with her child. [ 13 ] The father admitted to the Court that he had arguments with the mother concerning money issues. [ 14 ] The couple's financial situation is very difficult. He does not work and he is not bilingual.

He admits that those conflicts had some impacts on his child. [ 15 ] An agreement was taken with both of the parents for them not to be together in the presence of the children for a while and to accept the presence of the paternal grandmother at their home for a few days. [ 16 ] On August 19, the grandmother informed the Youth Protection worker that the parents did not respect the agreement.

On August 20, the parents and the grandmother were met by the Youth Protection services and another agreement was taken to the effect that the children will go with the grandmother until August 29. [ 17 ] On August 29, the Court entrusted the child to the mother. The mother admitted herself into the [Group A]. She still lives there.

The mother decided to do so because the father refused to leave the family's house. [ 18 ] The father was not able to have many visits with his son because he did not accept the supervision of the contacts in the presence of a third party. [ 19 ] The father was not collaborating with the Youth Protection services and was having difficulty working with Mrs [Social Worker 1] (worker in the file). [ 20 ] Several attempts were made to ask the father if he wanted to work with a new worker. The father refused the offer.

He started having suicidal ideations at that point to call 9-1-1. [ 21 ] On November 27, 2014, a new worker met with the father for the first time. The main goal of that meeting was to verify if the father could collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and remain calm in the worker and the child's presence. [ 22 ] During the meeting that lasted one hour and a half the father was always complaining and at some point he even shouted.

He was always blaming the mother and never able to calm down. [ 23 ] The worker allowed the father to have a supervised visit the same week even tough the meeting did not go very well. [ 24 ] During the visits the worker noticed that the father had some good parental capacities. He was able to respond to his son's needs and he reacted well and appropriately to his child's demands. [ 25 ] On October 31, 2014, during the first supervised visit the father was a little calmer.

As soon as the worker asked him if he would be willing to drive with the grandmother to Town A for the supervised visit, he immediately refused and started to get upset and get louder. [ 26 ] During the second supervised visit the father was very cranky and aggressive. He started complaining few minutes after the child arrived saying that the worker was there to judge him. The worker tried to explain him twice what she expected from him for the next visits.

Finally the grandmother said she would explain to him. [ 27 ] On November 21, 2014, the Youth Protection worker scheduled a visit supervised by the paternal grandmother early in the morning to accommodate the mother (she had an appointment in Town B to change her winter tires at 8:00 am). The worker was supposed to join for the visit at 9:30. The mother and the grandmother were seen outside without the child: they admitted they had left the child with the father for few minutes.

The worker put an end to the visit, as it was not the first time they change the rules at their own convenience. [ 28 ] The father told the Court that he knew that the visits to his son were supervised in the presence of a third party because the Director of Youth Protection did not trust him because of his aggressive behaviour. According to him he can totally control himself when he is in presence of his child.

He admitted that his relationship with the Director of Youth Protection was not very good. [ 29 ] Mrs [Social Worker 2] who is the new Protection worker in this file stated that the supervised visits could occur without the presence of a third party if the father could control himself in the presence of his child. The visits could be supervised by another person chosen by the father and approved by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 30 ] Even if he does not acknowledge any health problem the father agrees to have an appointment with a doctor.

He also agrees to work on his anger management issue. [ 31 ] The mother has a good bond with the child. She has taken the decision to move to Town C to make a better life for her and her children. [ 32 ] The mother agreed that the situation with the father was not a healthy one. However she admitted that she had still feelings for him. [ 33 ] The mother has managed to really get her life organized very quickly. She made arrangement for her housing.

She enrolled her oldest boy into school and made all appropriate calls to services required by her situation. [ 34 ] The mother wants the child to have visits with his father. However she does agree that the father needs to start working with the services required by the situation.

[ 35 ] The child is a two years old boy. He is a healthy child who is developing accordingly to his age. According to the mother he is always laughing and playing with the other children. [ 36 ] The new Protection worker noticed the following things concerning the interaction between the child and his father.

For each supervised visit when the child enters the house he never walks to his father to have a hug, he never says « Daddy » as a sign of happiness to see his dad which was possible to observe between the child and his mother and grandmother. [ 37 ] For the worker that questions the bonding between X and his father. This bonding could have been affected by the family's history. Decision [ 38 ] According to the evidence the father has some good parental skills. However he is still not able to control his temper even in his child's presence.

It is harmful for his child to see him aggressive and loud. [ 39 ] For his own benefit and his child's the father need to assess and control his anger management issue.

The Court takes judicial notice of the father's consent to be assessed by a psychologist and to follow a therapy for his anger management issue. [ 40 ] Considering the evidence as a whole which includes the parties' admissions the Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on […], 2012, is still endangered. [ 41 ] Considering the evidence as a whole which includes the parties' admissions the Court concludes that the applicant's recommendations concerning the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the child's best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 42 ] Grants the motion; [ 43 ] Maintains that the security or development of X, born on […], 2012, is still endangered according to the law; [ 44 ] Orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 45 ] Entrusts the child to the mother; [ 46 ] Orders that the contacts between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the length and in the presence of a third party for as long as deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 47 ] Takes judicial notice of the father's consent and orders him to be assessed by a psychologist and to have a follow-up if deemed necessary by this professional; [ 48 ] Recommends to the father to seek help, treatment or therapy for addiction problem; [ 49 ] Takes judicial notice of the father's consent to have some treatment or therapy for anger management and orders him to follow any treatment or therapy for anger management and to have a follow-up if deemed necessary by a professional; [ 50 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother's consent to receive services required by her situation and orders her to seek any services concerning her addiction and personal issues (like domestic violence); [ 51 ] Orders that the parents not to be together in the presence of the child for as long as deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 52 ] Orders the parents to remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 53 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 54 ] Orders and permits the exchange of information between the Director of Youth Protection and all the professionals working with the parents according the information gather in the situation in which the security or development of the child is endangered; [ 55 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 56 ] Entrusts the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the child Me Michel-Étienne Parayre, attorney for the mother Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 27, 2014