2012 QCCQ 15455, 2012 QCCQ 15455

Protection de la jeunesse — 125817 2012 QCCQ 15455 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004267-129 760-41-004266-121 760-41-004268-127 DATE: August 16, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2003 Y , born on […], 2006 Z , born on […], 2008 Children DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- B -and- C JC0B11 Parents of the children

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] Motions for protection are submitted to the Court concerning the siblings X, Y and Z.

The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and development of the children are compromised due to a situation of psychological ill-treatment, as is more amply detailed in paragraph 4 of the motions. [ 2 ] The Petitioner recommends various measures of aid and support to the family for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The Petitioner produces the reports on the analysis of the children's social situation as evidence in lieu of the testimony of its authors.

The parties admissions are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 4 ] At the time of the initial evaluation of the family's situation in April 2012, the family unit is composed of the parents and their four children: X ([…]), Y ([…]), Z ([…]) and A ([…]). [ 5 ] The parents have struggled with their marital relationship for numerous years. [ 6 ] In March 2012, they receive confirmation that the youngest child, A, is not Mr. C's biological son. The father's reaction is explosive.

He is unable to neither understand nor accept the situation and two days later, the parents undertake proceedings to offer the child for adoption through the adoption services of Le Centre Jeunesse A . [ 7 ] Although an adoptive family is found rapidly, the family situation continues to degenerate. On April 10 th , a crisis occurs when the father threatens to kill himself and A. He insists that A leave the home immediately and a provisional agreement is signed entrusting the child to a foster family.

The mother divulges that A is the issue of her being sexually abused. [ 8 ] Since this time, the parents continue to deal with the pressures of their hobbled relationship and the complex emotional issues resulting from their decision to amputate A from the family. The situation intensifies already present conflicts in the family dynamic.

Both parents are overwhelmed by the complexity of emotions generated by the circumstances and are unable to be sensitive to the other's individual sufferings. [ 9 ] The mother is the victim of conjugal violence shortly after the departure of A, incidents that are witnessed by the other siblings. The parents separate for a short period, but decide to continue their relationship. [ 10 ] As to the sudden departure of their brother A, the father explains to the children that they cannot live together as a family because he is not his father. He also explains the circumstances of A's conception.

He burns pictures of A and defends any reference to him. The evidence demonstrates that the parent's introspection adversely affects their ability to consider and correctly address their children's possible concurrent emotional anguish. [ 11 ] Since the summer, the situation evolves to a certain degree, as the parents actively avoid points of pressure. Both parents maintain passive-aggressive behaviours. They decide to seek counselling with the CLSC as to their relationship. [ 12 ] The Court determines that the situation continues to be volatile.

The security and the development of the children remain in danger as long as the family and relationship issues are not addressed. [ 13 ] More particularly, the Court considers that the children have neither the maturity nor the ability to fully comprehend their parent's decision concerning their sibling. Their emotional state must be attended to, as they are also, in a mourning period, as well as being witness to the tensions and frustrations, which still inhabit their parents.

The Court considers that a psychological evaluation is necessary to determine more clearly their needs and offer a neutral forum to voice their feelings in this situation. [ 14 ] In view of the admissions and the reports submitted in evidence, the Court is satisfied of the evidence and consequently determines that the security and the development of the children are compromised in reason of a situation of psychological ill-treatment. [ 15 ] As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights, as well as the best interests, of the children. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the children remain with their family and that the children's parents report periodically to the Director on the

measures they apply in their own regard, or in their children's regard, to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the children and their parents for a period of 12 months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the children receive specific health care and health services, specifically a psychological follow-up; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents continue their personal follow-up with the CSSS and this, for as long as deemed appropriate by the professionals and the DYP; [ 24 ] PERMITS the Director to make surprise visits to the family home; [ 25 ] PERMITS that the Director of Youth Protection meet with the children individually and / or in the absents of their parents; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: August 16, 2012