2018 QCCQ 12528, 2018 QCCQ 12528

Protection de la jeunesse — 182920 2018 QCCQ 12528 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 615-41-002230-174 DATE: March 16, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER A], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at […] Applicant -and- X, presently hosted at […] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at […] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A DRAFT AGREEMENT (Sec. 95 par. 3 of 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and the development of X, born on […], 2005, declared still endangered. [ 2 ] The parties submitted to this Court a draft agreement on measures to put an end to the situation that still compromises the security and the development of the child. [ 3 ] The child is present and represented by a lawyer. The mother is absent and not represented.

The father is present and not represented. [ 4 ] The draft agreement states that the consent of the parties was given in a free and enlightened manner. The parties acknowledge the following facts which endanger the security and the development of X: 3.1 On July 7, 2017, it was determined that the child Y was a victim of inadequate gestures of sexual nature by her father.

The child Y has since been entrusted in a foster home with her twin sister X; 3.2 The mother didn’t believe her daughter’s disclosure; 3.3 The child X was diagnosed with an autism disorder in September 2017; 3.4 On or about November 2, 2017, the child Y was brought to the Youth Rehabilitation Center by police officers for an emergency measure.

The child Y stayed there until November 6, 2017; 3.5 Since December 27, 2017, the child Y has not gone back to her mother’s house, staying at the foster family’s home, while her sibling X has had outings at the mother’s house but Y refused to go there on New Year’s day and has not been back since; 3.6 At the beginning of her placement in her current foster home, the child Y displayed serious behavioural problems. Since December 2017, her behaviour has improved;

3.7 The child Y is still mutilating herself, but not as frequently as before; 3.8 Since her placement, the child X has had outings at her mother’s house every second week-end; 3.9 As for the father, since July, 2017, he completed a heavy machinery course; 3.10 Since January 12, 2018, the father was attending a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, Centre A.

His program was completed on February 14, 2018; 3.11 After a meeting with the youth protection worker, in December 2017, the father mentioned being ready to participate in a psychosexual evaluation when he returned from therapy; 3.12 The father pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual misconduct towards the young teenager Y.

He should be receiving his sentence in April 2018; 3.13 After meeting with the case worker in December 2017, the father did not deny nor admit that he had any sexual misconduct towards any of his children; 3.14 According to the parents, the father has been able to maintain sobriety since April 2017; 3.15 Since the child Y’s placement in a foster home, the mother has sent several text messages to the girls; 3.16 The child X was told that she was a wanted child but her twin sister, Y was an unwanted child; 3.17 The mother offers very minimal collaboration with the Youth Protection Services and the collaboration is difficult; 3.18 The child Y confirmed not wanting to go back home after the current measure; 3.19 The case worker has no information that the mother has started an individual psychological follow-up; 3.20 Considering the lack of implication of the mother, it is impossible to assert the mother’s opinion on the situation; 3.21 The parents still remain a couple at this time; 3.22 The child Y is still mutilating herself but not as frequently as before; 3.23 It is in the child’s interest to be entrusted to a foster home for an additional period of six (6) months; [ 5 ] They also agree on several measures in order to put an end to the situation which endangers the child’s security and development: 4.1 That the court order that the adolescents be entrusted to a foster home for an additional six (6) months; 4.2 That aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the adolescents and the parents for a period of six (6) months; 4.3 That the parents assure that the children receive services from the psychologist and follow the recommendations; 4.4 That the father participate in a psychosexual evaluation and follow the recommendations; 4.5 That the mother participate in a therapeutic follow-up and follow the recommendations; 4.6 That the Director of Youth Protection determine the modalities of contact between the adolescents and their parents as to frequency and duration; 4.7 That the contacts with the father be supervised by Director of Youth Protection; 4.8 That the situation of X and Y, born on […], 2005, is still being compromised as declared in the last judgment; 4.9 That foster care of the child X and Y in a foster home for a period of six (6) months; 4.10 That the contacts between the adolescents and their parents be under the supervision of the director of youth protection concerning the frequency, modalities, place and presence of a third person designated or approved by the director; 4.11 That the situation of the child be entrusted to the DYP; 4.13 That any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 6 ] Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the measures are likely to put an end to the situation and respect the rights and the interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 8 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2005, are still in danger;

[ 9 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement signed and submitted by the parties; [ 10 ] ORDERS the parties to respect these measures; [ 11 ] ORDERS any police body to collaborate in the execution of the present order if required; [ 12 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of the Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures agreed upon by the parties. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. M e Caroline Daniel Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Claude Cossette Lawyer for the child Date of hearing: February 27, 2018