2019 QCCQ 19537, 2019 QCCQ 19537

Protection de la jeunesse — 197971 2019 QCCQ 19537 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34680-181 Date: September 13, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a sixteen year-old adolescent, based on the serious risk of neglect, psychological ill-treatment and serious risk of physical abuse to which she is exposed. [ 2 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated November 6, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. on September 10, 2018, the Honorable Judge Taya Di Pietro declared that the child’s sibling Y’s security and development were deemed endangered due to the child being the victim of bodily injury by the mother and due to psychological ill-treatment as it appears more fully from the proces-verbal; 3.2. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of Mr.

C and Ms. A, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) Mr. C and Ms. A have at times a conflictual relationship;

b) they regularly argue in the child’s presence;

c) at times those arguments escalate into physical violence;

d) on August 23, 2018, an argument between Mr. C and Ms. A (sic) escalated into physical violence and police intervention was needed;

e) following said incident, both Mr. C and Ms. A were arrested;

f) Ms. A has pending charges for assault with a weapon and she has conditions of no contact with Mr. C;

g) Mr. C and Ms. A minimize said incidents of violence and their impact on the children; 3.3. the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury by Mr. C and Ms. A in that they can behave in an erratic, aggressive and unstable way with each other, even when the children are present;

3.4. there is a serious risk that Mr. C and Ms.

A do not meet the child’s basic needs in that they can behave in an erratic, aggressive and unstable way with each other, even when the children are present; 3.5. the father resides in Town A and he has had no contact with the child since May 2018 (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Ameur, denied most of the allegations in the application, opposed the measures and requested that the file be closed. [ 6 ] The adolescent's father was absent at the hearing and his current whereabouts are unknown.

Consequently, the Court proceeded in his absence. [ 7 ] The adolescent, represented by Me Pelletier, ignored most of the allegations and indicated that she felt no need for any services from the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] In

summary, X is the eldest of the mother’s four children. The second eldest was placed in a group home in May 2018. On November 20, 2018, his security and development were declared to be endangered based on the psychological ill-treatment and physical abuse to which he was exposed.

He remains in placement. [ 9 ] The adolescent’s situation was only signalled several months later, in August 2018 when police were called to the family home following an argument between the mother and her step-father, the father of the mother’s two younger children. [ 10 ] The parties objected to the filing of the police report as it was incomplete and the officers were not available for cross examination.

The police report is therefore disregarded. [ 11 ] However, interviews with each of the children confirm that the parents were arguing, there was loud yelling and items were thrown. [ 12 ] The adolescent indicated this was the first time police were called to the home and did not express any fear: X did not wish to discuss the severity of the arguments but did share that they are usually verbal and can happen frequent (sic) when subjects of finances and food are brought up.

She does not fear being at home and did not share any risk of living with her mother. [1] [ 13 ] None of the children interviewed referred to the mother’s injuries but: Ms. A specified that the cut and blackness under her right eye was a result of a punch she had received from Mr. C. [2] [ 14 ] Although the gravity of the incident is undeniable, there is no evidence of any incident of conjugal violence after August 2018.

The couple is divorced, and no longer lives together. [ 15 ] There is no evidence of neglect or risk of neglect regarding the adolescent, no indication that her basic needs have not been met. “School staff has no further concerns for X at school” [3] , barring her absence for a few days when the family took a trip to Florida for the Christmas holidays. [ 16 ] Moreover, there is no evidence of conflict or tension between the adolescent and her mother. [ 17 ] Although there have been incidents of physical abuse regarding the sibling who is in placement, as well as fear of physical discipline regarding a younger sibling, a serious risk of physical abuse cannot be inferred in the adolescent’s case. [ 18 ] The mother’s uncontradicted testimony is to the effect that her daughter is “wonderful”, “a blessing”, and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that there is any particular source of tension or conflict between them, nothing to suggest that the situation may escalate and pose a risk of physical abuse to the adolescent. [ 19 ] The evidence does establish that the mother has become overwhelmed by her son’s behavior in the past and responded inappropriately.

The physical abuse in his case was admitted. However, the evidence establishes that he presents particular challenges, including having been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that any parallels can be drawn or inferred between the dynamic between the mother and her son and the mother and the adolescent. [ 20 ] Finally, the Director raised a worrisome incident to which the adolescent was exposed when her brother who is in placement came home for a weekend visit. [ 21 ] The educator who was present at the time of the incident on Monday May 20, 2019 described the events in detail at the hearing. [ 22 ] His testimony establishes that the son was becoming frustrated and angry, calling his mother abusive names, throwing picture frames, and becoming more and more violent so that the educator had to intervene and physically restrain him to prevent anyone from getting hurt until the police arrived. [ 23 ] According to the educator’s testimony, the mother directed the adolescent to leave the room with the younger child and to call the police.

She was not physically aggressive and responded appropriately by removing the other children from the situation and having them call for help.

[ 24 ] Given that the son’s anger was not directed at his siblings, that he is in placement, that the mother was collaborating with the educator and acted appropriately to remove the adolescent from the situation, there is no evidence of serious risk of exposure to physical abuse for the adolescent. [ 25 ] For all these reasons, given the relatively low degree of vulnerability of the adolescent who is the eldest in the family, given the uncontradicted evidence to the effect that she has a positive relationship with her mother and does not present any particular behavioral challenges, given that her relationship with the mother’s former partner is simply described as “avoidant”, but not particularly conflictual, given that there are no reported incidents of conjugal violence to which she may have been exposed since August 2018, and finally given that the mother reacted appropriately when the adolescent’s sibling became aggressive, that he is in placement and that social services are following the family regarding his issues, the Court concludes that the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the adolescent’s situation is endangered under any of the alleged grounds of the Youth Protection Act .

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 26 ] DISMISSES the application. Signed on September 13, 2019 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me François Pelletier Attorney for the adolescent Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: February 28 and July 16, 2019. TD/vl