2020 QCCQ 9680, 2020 QCCQ 9680

Protection de la jeunesse — 206674 2020 QCCQ 9680 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-009855-208 505-41-009760-19 2 505-41-009761-190 DATE: July 31, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2007 Y , born on [...], 2004 Z , born on [...], 2003 Children -and- F Mother -and- G Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] (section 38 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). THE CONTEXT [ 1 ] X, Y and Z, siblings aged respectively 13, 16 and 17, reside with their parents. [ 2 ] The parents were separated for a few years but now live together again. All the members of the family are Indigenous persons from the A community of City A. [ 3 ] The children have 4 other half-siblings that reside elsewhere; A, B, C and D. [ 4 ] Since December 2019, provisional measures are in force entrusting Z to a reception centre. Since June 2020, such is also the case for X.

Y continues to reside with her parents and is pregnant from her relationship with a teenager named E. She is due to give birth in approximately one month. [ 5 ] The Director asks the Court to retain a situation of endangerment resulting from several motives and apply various measures of aid and rehabilitation, while entrusting the children in a reception centre for one year as concerns X and Y and until the majority for Z. [ 6 ] Contesting the alleged situation of endangerment, the parents seek the dismissal of the applications.

The parents advance that they never received the help they needed since the beginning of the Director’s intervention. [ 7 ] X’s attorney pleads that the Director fails to meet its onus on all the situations of endangerment and especially concerning the allegations of sexual abuse and risk of physical abuse. Such is also the position as to Y and Z, especially as concerns a situation of endangerment on physical abuse. All the children want to return home. THE ISSUES

[ 8 ] The cascading issues before the Court are the following: i. Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that the children demonstrate serious behavioural disturbances? ii. Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that the children are victims of neglect on the educational level? iii. Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is a victim of psychological-ill treatment? iv.

Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is a victim of sexual abuse? v. Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that Y is a victim of physical abuse? vi. Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is at a serious risk of physical abuse? vii. What protective measures must be put in place in the children’s best interests and in view of the objectives of the Youth Protection Act ?

PRIOR INTERVENTIONS AND JUDGMENTS [ 9 ] The family is well known by A social services since June 2003. The children were the subjects of numerous investigations by the Director due to their parent’s lifestyle. [ 10 ] In view of such, several court orders are rendered over the last years, mainly by Judge Robert Proulx, now joint chief judge. It is therefore pertinent to resume this judicial history within the present analysis. [ 11 ] On August 1, 2007, Judge Louis Grégoire renders a first court order as regards to Z and Y.

He concludes that the security and development of the children are endangered because of the lifestyle and the behaviours of the parents. [ 12 ] He notes that the children live with negative consequences stemming from the disorganised way of life of the parents. Their substance abuse is the foundation of neglect, lack of structure and violence. The children are entrusted to their parents with a social follow-up of one year.

The files are closed after this period. [ 13 ] In 2010, the parents separate. [ 14 ] A new Court order for protection, now concerning the three children, intervenes on December 13, 2010 by Judge Robert Proulx. The situation of the children is then considered endangered in reason of neglect and psychological-ill treatment resulting from to the serious separation conflict. In his judgement, Judge Proulx notes the parent’s lack of structure. [ 15 ] From October 2010 to August 2011, the children are entrusted to foster care families. [ 16 ] On June 17, 2011, the Court entrusts the children back to the father.

At that time, he lives with a new partner, Ms H, who offers support and takes care of the children. The mother does not recognizes her own difficulties and Judge Proulx writes that she “has great trouble setting limits and supervising the children” [2] . At that time, the father is maintaining his sobriety. [ 17 ] On April 17, 2012, the Court entrusts the children to both parents on a shared custody basis. [ 18 ] On November 29, 2012, the protective measures are extended. The parents participate in programs to improve their parental skills and still have difficulties meeting the children’s need.

Z is showing more and more behavioural problems. Judge Proulx concludes to a new situation of endangerment since the father has hit the children with a belt. [ 19 ] On June 18, 2013, the Court entrusts the children to the mother mainly because after 7 years of sobriety, the father has relapsed. Judge Proulx writes: “It is clear that the father needs services for his drinking problem, but also from a psychological standpoint” [3] . He recommends that the father continue with his AA meetings. [ 20 ] On December 18, 2013, these protectives measures are extended.

Judge Proulx notes that the children’s behavioural problems continue to increase and that they need to evolve in an environment with a consistent structure. [ 21 ] The most recent Court order is rendered on February 4, 2015 for a period of one year. The child are entrusted to the mother. At that time, the father participates in an inpatient treatment therapy for his alcoholism. He remains for four of the six weeks scheduled. [ 22 ] In this order, Judge Proulx states being very concerned with the fact that the children, especially Z, report that there is drinking in the home.

Also, “Z is frequently late for school, has aggressive behaviour there, and the school authorities have noted the parents’ poor involvement in the child’s education. A social follow-up is ordered for a period of one year and the Court also recommends that the father participate to his addictions counselling and follow recommendations. [ 23 ] Numerous interventions are put in place to support the parents with parenting and structure. The parental conflict seems to resolve and the father to be sober. The children appear to be more organized and the school reports are positive.

The Director closes the files once again. [ 24 ] As of October 2016, the Director receives numerous complaints that they evaluate as unfounded.

[ 25 ] Again, as of October 19, 2017, the Director receives new reports concerning the situation of Y and eventually concludes that the child is in need of protection because she is at risk of failing her school year and has difficulty maintaining interpersonal relationships in reason of her behaviours.

Around January 2018, the parties agree to apply voluntary measures until June 30, 2018, offering the child and her family receive aid, counsel and assistance. [ 26 ] After that, the Director continues to receive some complaints concerning Z and Y, some of which are inconclusive while others are confirmed. [ 27 ] Because of his serious behavioural disturbances, Z is entrusted to a group home on August 20, 2019 for 60 days following provisional agreements between the parties. [ 28 ] On November 18, 2019, the Director presents an application for protection and provisional measures. [ 29 ] Since then, the hearing on the application for protection has been postponed several times due to the necessity for case- management, a change of lawyers and the sanitary crisis relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 30 ] A case-management is finally held on June 10, 2020 and the hearing scheduled on July 20, 23 and 24, 2020. [ 31 ] On June 30, 2020, the Court hears a new application for provisional measures seeking to entrust X and Y to a reception centre.

Judge Thierry Nadon entrusts X to a reception centre on a provisional basis while maintaining Y, who is pregnant, at home with some commitments from the parties. A new lawyer is appointed to X due to a conflict of interest. [ 32 ] On Friday July 17, 2020, the Court is informed that a new lawyer now represents the parents. At the first day of trial, the Court informs the lawyers that the case cannot be postponed due to the ongoing provisional placements, the long delays already incurred and the best interests of the children.

The lawyers agree to present only one witness on the first day and continue for full days for the remainder of the hearing. THE EVIDENCE [ 33 ] The hearing proceeds over three days, with the parties submitting both testimonial and documentary evidence. Within its overall evaluation of this evidence, the Court firstly resumes the facts retained as pertinent to the judgment, resolving the contentious facts and issues in its analysis phase. [ 34 ] The Director of Youth Protection worker responsible of the evaluation of the different reports was Ms. [Social Worker 2].

She is replaced by Ms. [Social Worker 1] at the end of the month of May 2020. [ 35 ] The present proceedings commence on November 18, 2019 with an emergency hearing concerning the situation of Z and Y relating to an incident that occurred on November 16. [ 36 ] The evidence reveals that on that day, just past midnight, the Peacekeepers call A Social Services to let them know that they have arrested Z for driving intoxicated in a car while his sister Y and her boyfriend E are passengers. [ 37 ] The evidence demonstrates the following worrisome facts: • At the time of his arrest, Z’s alcohol level is over the legal limit; • Z doesn’t have a driving permit; • Y and E are also intoxicated; • The children reacted aggressively to their arrest and forceful intervention was required by the police; • At the police station, Y demonstrates sexualized behaviour with her boyfriend; [ 38 ] The parents were unaware of the situation until the mother got a call from the Peacekeepers.

The father was sleeping and the mother playing bingo for a part of the night. When she got the call, she was upset and refused to go get her children. [ 39 ] Up until now, Y denies the behaviours described by the police nor to having abused alcohol.

The overall evaluation of the evidence is not in her favour. [ 40 ] After this incident, Z and Y are entrusted to a reception centre under emergency protective measures. [ 41 ] On November 18, the Court entrusts both children to their parents with a contract of rules agreed with the parties that mentions more notably that they will seek counselling for substance abuse and that they will respect a curfew. In addition, the Court orders that the parents and the children do not come into contact with E. [ 42 ] On the day of the hearing, Z meets with his social worker and recognizes the alleged facts.

He explains that on that night when he met up with E and Y, they were already drinking and smoking weed. For no specific reason, they decided to take his father’s truck. He promised his worker he would never do that again. [ 43 ] He does not respect many of his promises and drinks heavily over the past next weeks. Peacekeepers are called for assistance on December 7. On December 8, Z is sent to a reception centre under urgent protective measures. The next day, Z agrees to receive therapy and the Court orders that he be provisionally entrusted to a reception center and recommending the addiction center A.

[ 44 ] On December 18, the Court is informed that Z no longer wants to be at [Center A] and prefers to go to the A group home in City B and receive external services for his substance abuse problem. [ 45 ] On January 20, 2020, Y petitions the Court with an application for revision of provisional measures since she recently learned she is pregnant with her boyfriend E and seeks to lift their prohibition of contact.

Since all the parties are in agreement with the request of the child, the Court lifts such while further ordering the child to communicate with her social worker on the frequency and modalities of their contacts. [ 46 ] The parents recognize their continued alcohol consumption. The mother maintains that she does not see herself as having a problem. The father explains that although he can frequents bars regularly and can sometimes consume many beers in one day, he also doesn’t think he has an alcohol problem. Z [ 47 ] On January 20, 2020, the on-call worker is informed by Y that Z is drunk.

The worker goes to the home and observes that both Z and his father are intoxicated. At that moment, Z offers money to the worker in exchange for her silence. [ 48 ] The day after, Z meets with Ms. [Social Worker 2]. He recognizes that he was drinking with his father and a friend.

The mother was at bingo. [ 49 ] After that incident, the mother tells the Director she will get rid of the alcohol in the house. [ 50 ] On February 22, 2020, during a visitation period home, Z is brought back to the center because of an incident involving his alcohol use with Y and E. [ 51 ] During the period of confinement starting in March 2020, the child is not allowed to visit his parents in City A. He and his parents find that period of time very difficult. [ 52 ] At the group home, he is suspected a few time of drug use.

Z denies this and explains that he started to take medication for his anxiety during the spring and that could make him look high at first. [ 53 ] There is also an incident where he gets caught buying drugs via social media. He states that the drug was not for him but for another resident of the group home. Such was confirmed by this teen who was the one who did the transaction in person. Still, Z recognizes that he should have not been involved. [ 54 ] After that, the child begin therapy with an addictions worker in City B, Mr. I.

Z is described as an active participant that shows positive progress within his goals to reduce his THC use and completely stop alcohol. Even during the period of confinement, he continues to attend his sessions by phone. Both his motivation and involvement in treatment are positive. Mr. I is still willing to provide him help. [ 55 ] Previous to Mr. I, Z was receiving counselling from Mr J in City A. Mr. J was his addiction worker since May 2019. He was appointed because of numerous incidents involving Z’s drinking and other risky delinquent behaviors.

He was the one who talked to Z about [Center A]. [ 56 ] Although it is true that Z has not followed through with Mr. J, the Court is satisfied that he works with only one counsellor at a time. However, the Court is surprised that Mr. J does not seem aware of this other follow-up. [ 57 ] At the group home, Z attends school at adult-education where he experiences success. He is proud of himself. Since the school is closed because of COVID-19, the child meets with a tutor on a regular basis at the group home. She describes him as prepared, willing to work and always engaged. [ 58 ] Ms.

K, the Director of A group home, also testifies at the hearing. She explains that the child has made some good gains and has learn to remove himself from anxious situations by going to his room. He was not used to rules when he first arrived but is now doing better with structure. [ 59 ] Since around March 2020, she has seen some improvement as he takes medication for his anxiety. From her point of view, she believes that he could benefit from more time at the group home to work on his autonomy.

He needs to maintain the daily struggle of maintaining his sobriety. [ 60 ] The Director of Youth Protection received several reports about Z’s sexual relationships with adult friends, namely L and even with E; the father of Y’s baby. However, at the hearing, Z, X and L strongly deny those allegations, so this remains unclear. [ 61 ] Z believes that the youth protection intervention is the sole cause of his anxiety.

He is adamant that he had not consumed drugs or alcohol since February 2020. [ 62 ] Ms. [Social Worker 2] tells the Court that Z always wants to do well but struggles maintain his efforts through time. [ 63 ] The Director recommends that Z remain at A group home until his majority. Y [ 64 ] Since July 2019, the child participates in a psychological follow-up with Ms. Linda Moxley-Haegert. The Court benefits from her report, produced as testimony. [ 65 ] Y was referred to this professional after a tragic incident in the parent’s home on March 24, 2019, producing suicidal thoughts

and post-traumatic stress symptoms. [ 66 ] Without going into all the details, it is important to state that this incident had consequences on the members of the family. At that time, the half-sister of the children, B, was living with her boyfriend M and their young baby at the family home. At the time of the incident, B was away on a trip with friends and M was taking care of the baby. [ 67 ] One night, Y was awakened by noises in the room where M and the baby were. When she succeeded in opening the door, she found the baby inanimate.

She went to wake up her mother who practiced cardiac massage while waiting for the ambulance. The father of the baby was later accused of abuse towards the baby who was the victim of a shaken-baby syndrome. The children of B and M were removed from the G’s home by the social services. [ 68 ] After that traumatic event, Y was in need of therapy and started meetings with Ms. Moxley-Haegert during the summer 2019. In her report, the psychologist explains the following about her patient: “Y states that she has trauma from school bullying and from having been sexually assaulted by a person who attends her school.

She tried in the autumn to attend school but could not. She now wants to do adult education as soon as she is old enough to do so. She has difficulty academically and fears judgement from peers for her challenges. She struggles with her relationship with her father due to his drinking but he was helpful and supportive when she was brought into custody and had to go to court due to being in a vehicle with a drunk driver and companions (her brother and her boyfriend).

She is also struggling with the fact that her boyfriend can be very controlling of who she sees and where she goes even when not present in her life and also gets verbally abusive and even will be physical with her” [4] . [ 69 ] The psychologist mentions that Y was very compliant and worked hard in therapy. A strong therapeutic alliance grounded in trust was established. However, she missed some sessions because she was feeling tired in relation to her pregnancy. She then stopped attending altogether.

At the hearing, the child explains that she wants to start again with therapy. [ 70 ] Since September 2019, Y also receive help from a youth protection support worker, Ms. [Social Worker 3]. She works with her on understanding the traits of healthy relationships, strategies to cope during stress, goal getting, increasing her self-esteem and managing her substance use. [ 71 ] Following the Court hearing of December 2019, the child did not follow through with most of her commitments. [ 72 ] On January 15, 2020, Y informed Ms. [Social Worker 2] that she was pregnant and that the father was E.

Right then, some discussions took place to explain that the Director of Youth Protection would not recommend for her to stay home with the baby. She refuses the option of [Center B], a resource for young mothers. [ 73 ] Since Y was smoking marijuana and cigarettes regularly, a discussion also took place on the importance of stopping because of the harm it could do to her baby. Despite this, she still smokes cigarettes daily.

During a meeting at home scheduled on February 14, 2020, the mother also told Ms. [Social Worker 2] that Y was still using cannabis. [ 74 ] On February 23, 2020, Ms [Social Worker 4], an on-call worker, sees Y driving her mother’s vehicle recklessly in company of E and her sister X. Y does not have a driving licence. [ 75 ] Ms. [Social Worker 4] testifies at the hearing. She has known the family very well for the last 20 years.

She can come into contact with them in the community and she also went to their home several times as an on-call worker during evening and night periods. [ 76 ] After having seen Y driving, Ms. [Social Worker 4] decides to go the G’s house with the Peacekeepers.

Y denies having taken the van and the mother mentions not being aware that her daughter took the van. [ 77 ] The Director considers this incident as an example of educational neglect as well as a serious risk of physical abuse in regards to the possibility of injury, endangering the security and development of the child X. [ 78 ] Y has difficulties in school. In February 2020, she was expelled for a period of two weeks because she had a big crisis in school. [ 79 ] Y has made no alternate plans for her to live with the baby.

Although she has a volatile relationship with E, she has thought of going to live in an apartment with him. [ 80 ] Y is very resistant to the Director of Youth Protection’s intervention. She denies all the allegations against her and her family. She does not want to go to [Center B], states she has no difficulties and does not need an addictions assessment. [ 81 ] The Director explains that Y also needs a therapeutic placement. The social workers tried for many weeks to convince her to go to [Center B] which she staunchly refused. There is still a possibility that she accepts but there is a waiting list.

However, B Group Home would also allow her to stay there with her baby. X [ 82 ] The child met with Ms. [Social Worker 2] on two different occasions during the evaluation process. [ 83 ] She expressed a lack of support from her parents and a strained relationship with her siblings. She talked about her difficult relationship with her sister Y and about the fact that everyone was worried to upset her. She added that she would isolate herself from family members to avoid additional strains. [ 84 ] X and Y have regular fights over E. It appears that X once kissed E and that made Y very angry.

[ 85 ] She also confirmed having cut her arm on different occasions. [ 86 ] X also has difficulties in school. She has trouble socializing with other kids and is regularly suspended. The school authorities put in place a specific intervention plan to help her stay in school.

The mother thinks she is being picked on because she is native. [ 87 ] During a case conference in October 2019 with different professionals including [A social Services] workers, Ms. [Social Worker 5], the child’s psychotherapist raises her concerns as to her well-being. [ 88 ] Ms. [Social Worker 5] is one of the witnesses during the hearing. Her report is part of the documentary evidence and her confidentiality is waived by agreement of all the parties. [ 89 ] This psychotherapist works with X since December 2016.

She first starting with her on her anger management, as behavioural difficulties were causing problems at school. [ 90 ] Up until the schools close due to COVID-19, the child still exhibits some behavioural issues in school. Ms. [Social Worker 5] states that since September 2019, she sees a lot of change in X, particularly a decline in her mental health. She explains that her motivation in school has significantly decreased. During meetings she is often withdrawn or stressed and engages in self-harm when she is feeling overwhelmed.

She also mentions her desire not to be alive although she has not attempted suicide and has no plan. [ 91 ] The therapist testifies that she told her a handful of times that she wanted to live in another environment. [ 92 ] Ms. [Social Worker 5]’s sessions focus on identifying the components of a healthy relationship and consent, reducing her experience of sadness and anxiety and identifying healthy strategies to cope with distress. [ 93 ] She told her therapist that during the winter she was taking several pills a day (melatonin) to help her sleep. It was her brother’s medication.

She has now stopped because she does not like the effect. She also told her she was using alcohol and marijuana at home. [ 94 ] Ms. [Social Worker 5] has met the parents on a few occasions over the year, especially when there was case conferences at the school. They seemed to be attentive to what was being discussed. She did notice from the discussions that they were not involved in homework and not encouraging their daughter to go to school.

She specifies that her mandate is to offer individual therapy to X and not family therapy. [ 95 ] She adds that she never spoke directly to the parents concerning the suicidal behaviours of the child because her assessment of the level of risk did not make her think she should breach confidentiality. However, she did advise the Director of Youth Protection of her concerns during the winter of 2019-2020. [ 96 ] As of May 2020, Ms [Social Worker 6] takes over the follow-up, as Ms [Social Worker 5] leaves for another employment. [ 97 ] Sometimes, X will not go to school because she experiences high anxiety.

She also reported to the social worker being sexually abused at the age of ten but refused to give any further details. She specified it is not a member of the family. [ 98 ] During the week of May 4, 2020, the child goes to live with her sister A because she does not get along with her mother. She now stays there most of the time. [ 99 ] In a recent interview with Ms. [Social Worker 1], the child expresses she wishes to gain skills in order to cope with her anxiety, depression, anger and substances abuse-issues. She also reported that she has been engaging on risky sexual behaviours including with adult male.

She told her worker she wants to be “fixed” and that’s why she agreed to go to a group home. [ 100 ] Since she is in a group home, X struggles with the structure in place and demonstrates a lot of anger and anxiety issues. [ 101 ] The Director is asking for therapeutic placement and more particularly that she integrate B Group Home which was closed during COVID but has recently reopened. [ 102 ] The Court respects X’s choice not to testify at the hearing. However, no request for her to be declared incompetent to testify was presented to the Court.

RECENT INCIDENTS INVOLVING THE CHILDREN [ 103 ] On [...], 2020, the parents are having a party for the father’s 47 th birthday. The father has admitted that he drank 8 to 12 beers that night. [ 104 ] There are many people at the house. The children are all present with some friends including some cousins, E and L. Underage drinking is involved. [ 105 ] In a police declaration she made 2 days later, X stated that that night, she came back to her house after being out.

Everyone is drinking and E, Z, Y and L are all downstairs drinking. [ 106 ] She said that at one point, E is intoxicated and kissing L and Z. [ 107 ] At one point, everybody leaves except E. She is left alone with him and he tries to forcefully kiss her and touch her. [ 108 ] X told the Director that she told her father what happened that night with E. The parents completely deny this information, stating that they learned about the incident the next morning. [ 109 ] The evidence is highly contradictory on this aspect.

[ 110 ] During his testimony, L is questioned on that night by the Court. He explains that when he went downstairs, he discovered that E was in the same bed as X and knew something was happening. He mentions that the father was made aware of the situation that night and was mad. [ 111 ] In her testimony, Y explain that she came downstairs and saw E and her sister. She hit him after the incident.

The rest of her testimony is unclear as to understand what happened after that and what happened of E. [ 112 ] As for Z, he testifies that he let Y handle things that night and cannot explain further because he went in his room. [ 113 ] On June 28, X seeks shelter at her sister’s A since she is afraid of E, who came back at the house. During his testimony, the father explains that he did not know that E came back and slept at the house. [ 114 ] On June 28, Ms. [Social Worker 4] receives a report that there is underage drinking at the G’s residence.

She requests assistance of the Peacekeepers and they arrive at the house at around 11 o’clock at night. [ 115 ] As mentioned before, Ms. [Social Worker 4] is an on call worker and knows the family very well. She made many visits at their home over the past years for suspicion of drinking or other matters. [ 116 ] When they pull in with their vehicles, Ms. [Social Worker 4] see that E and Y on the porch. She sees that E stumbles against the van parked outside. Then Y tells him to go in the house, which he does.

They walk in the house leaving the door open. [ 117 ] Ms. [Social Worker 4] goes in the house and finds the parents sitting at the kitchen table. She can see a few cans of beers on the table and observes that the parents are intoxicated. During her testimony, she explains that she knows the parents very well and can make the difference between them being sober or not. Ms. F is particularly agitated, yelling belligerently at everyone present. The mother denies being drunk. [ 118 ] Ms. [Social Worker 4] asks the parents if she can go downstairs to check on Z who is on an authorized visit and should not be drinking.

The parents tell her to go knock on his door downstairs. The father says his son is sleeping and will not answer the door. Ms. [Social Worker 4] goes downstairs in the company of a Peacekeeper. Y is also present. [ 119 ] Ms. [Social Worker 4] knocks on the door several times and tries to talk to Z and let him know she just want to check on him. She can hear noises but nobody answers.

During the hearing, the Court learns that at that moment, an adult male, L is present with him in the room. [ 120 ] Z and the parents explain that he could not be woken up since he took sleeping pills before going to bed. [ 121 ] L is a witness presented by the parents. Answering some questions of the Court, he explains that he was awake during the intervention but Z was sleeping. He cannot explain why he did not open the door even if he was well aware someone was looking for his friend. [ 122 ] After a few minutes, the father yells from upstairs to force the door using a butter knife.

Y goes and get a knife but is unable to open the door. Ms. [Social Worker 4] decides to leave the house and talk to Z the day after. Outside the house, a police officer tries to see through the basement window, which is impossible. When she and the Peacekeepers leave, the mother is still shouting all kinds of profanities. [ 123 ] On June 29, Ms. [Social Worker 1] meets with X at her sister. X explains that she do not feel comfortable at home because of her parents drinking alcohol daily to the point of being severely impaired.

She lives with her sister A during the last months and does not want to be at her parents since there is no supervision and a lack of care. She feels depressed and smokes marijuana on a daily basis. She wishes to be placed in a neutral environment to avoid any further family conflict. [ 124 ] On June 29, around 6 pm, the father drives her daughter X to the police station to make a report for sexual assault. At first, she does not want to make a declaration because she does want to be in trouble with her sister Y but she finally does it. [ 125 ] On June 30, the Director request an emergency placement for X and Y.

Justice Nadon renders a provisional order entrusting X to a reception centre and maintaining Y home providing she does not come into contact with E and that the father refrain from consuming alcohol. [ 126 ] The same day, E is also present at the Court because of an emergency request for his placement in a reception centre, which is granted. [ 127 ] The day of the hearing, Ms. [Social Worker 1] witnesses the father trying several times to change X’s mind about her decision to be placed. X asks for Ms. [Social Worker 1]’s assistance in order to be placed in a neutral environment.

X also tries to talk to E several times, because she feels bad about the declarations she made that led to his placement. That day Y and X also get into an argument over E since X has romantic feelings for him. [ 128 ] On July 10, 2020. Ms. [Social Worker 2] was asked, as an on-call worker to do a spot- check at the house.

The parents were at the table having a couple of drinks however, Ms. [Social Worker 2] states that the mother did not seemed intoxicated. [ 129 ] In her testimony, Y explains that since Judge Nadon’s provisional order, she spoke to E once over the phone because he had suicidal thoughts at the center. [ 130 ] The family dynamic is now very tense. The mother and Y are no longer speaking to Ms. [Social Worker 1] explaining that they do not trust her. The family thinks there is no need for the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection.

As for the previous worker, Ms. [Social Worker 2], she testifies that she always had open discussions with them but that they are not on board to receive services for

themselves. A, who was supposed to testify at the hearing, refused to do so.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION THE LAW [ 131 ] The Director of Youth Protection assumes to onus to demonstrate by a balance of probabilities that the security and development of the children are in danger in their family environment. [ 132 ] To this effect, the Court cites the definition of such in the Youth Protection Act : 38 . (…) In this Act, (…) (b) “ neglect” refers to (…) (1) a situation in which the child’s parents or the person having custody of the child do not meet the child’s basic needs, (…) iii. failing to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support, or failing to take the necessary steps to ensure that the child receives a proper education and, if applicable, that he attends school as required under the Education Act (chapter I-13.3 ) or any other applicable legislation; (…) (c) “ psychological ill-treatment ” refers to a situation in which a child is seriously or repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of the child’s parents or another person that could cause harm to the child, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation.

Such behaviour includes in particular indifference, denigration, emotional rejection, excessive control, isolation, threats, exploitation, particularly if the child is forced to do work disproportionate to the child’s capacity, and exposure to conjugal or domestic violence; (d) “ sexual abuse ” refers to a situation in which the child is subjected to gestures of a sexual nature by the child’s parents or another person, with or without physical contact, including any form of sexual exploitation, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; (…) (e) “physical abuse ” refers to (1) a situation in which the child is the victim of bodily injury or is subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by his parents or another person, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; or (2) a situation in which the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury or being subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by his parents or another person, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; (f) “ serious behavioural disturbance ” refers to a situation in which a child behaves in such a way as to repeatedly or seriously undermine the child’s or others’ physical or psychological integrity, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation or, if the child is 14 or over, the child objects to such steps. [ 133 ] Within the evaluation, the Youth Protection Act stipulates elements to be considered in determining a situation of endangerment: 38.2 A decision to determine whether a report must be accepted for evaluation or whether the security or development of a child is in danger must take the following factors into consideration: (

a) the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency of the facts reported; (

b) the child’s age and personal characteristics; (

c) the capacity and the will of the parents to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; (

d) the community resources available to help the child and the child’s parents. SITUATION OF ENDANGERMENT [ 134 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that the children exhibit serious behavioural disturbances? [ 135 ] The Court concludes that such is the case. [ 136 ] All three children demonstrate serious behavioural disturbances and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 137 ] Since his placement, Z has evolved positively. He seeks support and counselling for his substance-abuse problem and mentions keeping up with his sobriety.

[ 138 ] He’s back to school and experiencing some success. Despite the pandemic, he continued to meet with a tutor on a regular basis. [ 139 ] However , the situation is very fragile and his behavioural problems long standing. He needs to learn to make the good choices and continue to work on his various issues. He still needs professional guidance to help him exploit his great potential. [ 140 ] As for Y, her pregnancy forced her to make better choices for herself and her baby. Before that, her substance abuse problem was out of control and dangerous for her health and safety.

It now seems to be less present but she has not done anything to work on this issue. Her continued refusal to recognize any difficulties make the rehabilitation work harder. [ 141 ] As for her mental health, she has stopped meeting with her psychologist, which also puts her at risk. Her relationship with E is toxic and she does not seem to understand all the harm he can do to her. [ 142 ] X has shown important signs of distress and this, despite the fact that she receives professional help. Also, her drug and alcohol use are very concerning.

Even if her behavioural problems are not as intense as her siblings, we have to take into account that she is more vulnerable being at the beginning of her teenage years. [ 143 ] Even though the parents participate in several meetings with social services and school, they are not able, because of the lack of surveillance and structure at home as well as because of their own personal issues, help them put an end to the situation. [ 144 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that the children are victims of neglect on the educational level? [ 145 ] The Court also concludes that such is the case. [ 146 ] The history of this family demonstrates that neglect on an educational level has been present for many years.

Although there have been some periods where the parents were able to offer their children more structure and avoid their exposure to their ongoing substance-abuse problem, most of their childhood was characterized with lack of surveillance, lack of routine and structure at home. [ 147 ] As a result, the children, now in their teenage years, demonstrate serious behavioural difficulties giving way to numerous incidents over the last year where they put themselves in danger. [ 148 ] The Court cannot subscribe to Z and Y’s argument to the effect that the children are less vulnerable because they are older.

Even though we can easily conclude that, in general, the younger a child is the more vulnerable he is, the Court needs to adopt a subjective approach when it comes to evaluate the situation of a child in need of protection. [ 149 ] Again, from all the prior judgments rendered in this situation, the analysis must take into account many aspects of the children’s family life, such as: • Their exposure to parental conflict and family violence; • The fact that they had to be removed from the family environment for a period of approximately one year; • The alcohol abuse of the parents; particularly the father; • The absence of routine, structure and surveillance; [ 150 ] The Court considers that the children are vulnerable teenagers that need, more than ever, adult guidance, support and surveillance which the parents cannot ensure on a day to day basis. [ 151 ] There is no doubt that these parents love their children and that they care and are concerned about what is happening to them.

The evidence demonstrate that they are generally very receptive, collaborative and attend meetings organized by the school or the social services.

However, once they are in the home, they do not apply the recommendations and are dealing their own personal issues. [ 152 ] The recent incidents further demonstrate that they have little control and knowledge of what is going on in their home. [ 153 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is a victim of psychological-ill treatment? [ 154 ] The Court concludes that it is not the case. [ 155 ] The attitudes and behaviours of the parents cause a situation of neglect on an educational level as to X but do not correspond to the definition of psychologically-ill treatment, more particularly that the parents show indifference, denigration, emotional rejection, excessive control, isolation, threats, exploitation, particularly if the child is forced to do work disproportionate to the child’s capacity, and exposure to conjugal or domestic violence in a way to compromise the security and development. [ 156 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is a victim of sexual abuse? [ 157 ] The Court concludes that it is not the case. [ 158 ] The evidence establishes that X was sexually abused by E, and such is admitted by all the parties.

However, the Court is not convinced that the child’s parents failed to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 159 ] Was there a lack of supervision from the parents on the night of June 27 2020? Yes. Were the parents partying and abusing alcohol? Most probably so. Was the parent’s lack of supervision due to their drinking? Again, most probably so.

[ 160 ] The Court is convinced that that the parents were made aware that night of an incident of sexual nature between X and E. We can question the fact that they did not immediately kick him out of the house and call the Peacekeepers. The most probable reason why nothing was done that night is the fact that there was too much alcohol involved. [ 161 ] Moreover, the evidence reveals that E was still at the house the day after the incident at night when Ms. [Social Worker 4] intervene to check on Z. At that time, the parents knew about the abuse.

This is another example of negligence. [ 162 ] However, they did take their responsibilities two days after to protect their daughter by bringing her to the police station and by believing their daughter. Even if they could have reacted faster, the Court considers that took the necessary steps in a reasonable period of time. [ 163 ] Nevertheless, X was sexually abused by E. She needs to be protected from him.

Since the parents are neglectful in regards to their supervision, prohibition of contacts between E and X is needed. [ 164 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that Y is a victim of physical abuse? [ 165 ] The Court concludes that it is not the case. [ 166 ] There is evidence that supports the fact that the relationship between Y and E can be toxic.

However, on the physical abuse, the Director points out only one incident when marks are seen on Y’s face following June 29. [ 167 ] Even if Ms. [Social Worker 1] think otherwise, Y and her mother affirm vividly that the marks on the children’s face were hickeys and not bruises. There are no other evidence concerning the presence of those marks. The Court has not seen the marks and there is no medical evidence.

In this context, it is hard to conclude to a physical abuse, even though the explication of the hickeys is somehow very strange and of questionable behaviour. [ 168 ] Does the Director of Youth Protection meet its onus of proving by a balance of probabilities that X is at a serious risk of physical abuse? [ 169 ] The Court concludes that it is not the case. [ 170 ] Although Y’s reckless driving with E and X in the van on February 23, 2020 could have hypothetically caused an accident, when the Court analyzes the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency of the situation, this incident does not meet the onus of proving a serious risk of physical abuse.

MEASURES OF PROTECTION [ 171 ] What protective measures must be put in place in the children’s best interests in view of the objectives of the Youth Protection Act? [ 172 ] The Court retaining that the children are neglected on an educational level and also demonstrate serious behavioural disturbances, the measures must include components in view of their protection and the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment. To this effect, the Court cites the Youth Protection Act (our underlining): 2.3 . Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger ; and (

b) must, if the circumstances are appropriate, favour the means that allow the child and the child’s parents to take an active

part in making decisions and choosing measures that concern them. Every person, body or institution having responsibilities under this Act towards a child and the child’s parents must encourage the participation of the child and the parents, and the involvement of the community . The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. 2.4 Every person having responsibilities towards a child under this Act, and every person called upon to make decisions with respect to a child under this Act shall, in their interventions, take into account the necessity (1) of treating the child and the child’s parents with courtesy, fairness and understanding, and in a manner that respects their dignity and autonomy; (2) of ensuring that any information or explanation that must be furnished to a child under this Act is presented in language appropriate to the child’s age and understanding; (3) of ensuring that the parents have understood the information or explanations that must be furnished to them under this Act; (4) of giving the child and the child’s parents an opportunity to present their points of view, express their concerns and be heard at the appropriate time during the intervention; and (5) of opting for measures, in respect of the child and the child’s parents, which allow action to be taken diligently to ensure the child’s protection, considering that a child’s perception of time differs from that of adults, and which take into consideration the following

factors: (

a) the proximity of the chosen resource; (

b) the characteristics of cultural communities; (

c) the characteristics of Native communities, including Aboriginal customary tutorship and adoption. 4. Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment.

If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible .

Moreover, the parents’ involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. If, in the interest of the child, returning the child to the family is impossible, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

A decision made under the second or third paragraph regarding a Native child must aim at entrusting the child to an alternative living environment capable of preserving his cultural identity, by giving preference to a member of his extended family or his community or nation. [ 173 ] The children all need therapeutic placement as they unfortunately do not benefit from continuity of care and stable living conditions in their family environment. [ 174 ] Z is in placement since December 2019. As stated, he has made some progress and has started to make better choices for himself.

A period of six months should allow him to pursue his work in a stable environment and give him time to reintegrate home with the support of social services before his majority. [ 175 ] Y will give birth to her baby in the next few weeks, and the option of a regular reception centre would not allow her to keep her baby with her. Her choice not to integrate [Center B] makes the decision a little harder to take for the Court. [ 176 ] However, despite her previous choices, Y still has the possibility to be with her baby at B Group Home.

The Court cannot make this choice for her but strongly believes that this is the best option for her in the circumstances.

She would have the opportunity to be with her young baby, in a stable and safe native environment while receiving the help of different professionals. [ 177 ] Finally, as for X, the Court also believes that she can work on her issues in a stable and structured environment that can be provided by a resource like the B Group Home. [ 178 ] A period of placement of ten months for the two girls will permit the re-evaluation of their respective situations before next summer. [ 179 ] The main objective of the intervention is to ensure that the children can be eventually return home.

The parents were able in the past to offer better structure and better deal with their alcohol use. They need to take the next few months to get counselling and participate in the social follow-up, in order to be able to offer a stable, secure, sober and structured environment. For that, they first need to recognize that they have difficulties to attend to and give the efforts to do so. [ 180 ] The Court also recommends that both parents seek counselling for substance-abuse, not only for themselves but also to help their children cope with their own addictions on a long-term basis.

They need to be an example for their children. [ 181 ] With this stated, the Court endorses the measures sought as being an accurate reflection of what is required in the children’s best interests and the objectives of the law. [ 182 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 183 ] GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 184 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children Z , Y and X are in danger for the following reason: − 38

b) iii): neglect on an educational level; − 38 f) : serious behavioural disturbances; FOR Z [ 185 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a reception centre for a period of six months and RECOMMENDS that he remain at A group home; and after this period ENTRUSTS the child to his parents; [ 186 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to meet with his addiction worker, Mr. I, on a regular basis and follows his recommendations; [ 187 ] RECOMMENDS that the child pursue an adult education program;

FOR Y [ 188 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a reception centre for a period of 10 months and RECOMMENDS that she be referred to the B Group Home or to [Center B]; and after this period ENTRUSTS the child to her parents; [ 189 ] RECOMMENDS that the child pursue an adult education program; [ 190 ] RECOMMENDS that the child completes a full addiction assessment and follow the recommendations; [ 191 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to meet with her support worker and that she follow the recommendations; [ 192 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to participate in her psychological follow-up and that she follow the recommendations; [ 193 ] ORDERS that all the contacts between Y and E be under the supervision of the Youth Protection Director; X [ 194 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a reception centre for a period of 10 months and RECOMMENDS that she be referred to the B Group Home; and after this period ENTRUSTS the child to his parents; [ 195 ] ORDERS that the child attend school; [ 196 ] RECOMMENDS that the child complete a full addiction assessment and that she follow the recommendations; [ 197 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continues to participate in her psychological follow-up and that she follow the recommendations; [ 198 ] FORBIDS all the contacts between X and E; FOR THE THREE CHILDREN [ 199 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be upon agreement between the parties and that they respect the following conditions during the contacts: • That the parents and the children work together on a plan to ensure their sobriety during visitation and that they all remain sober; • That the parents ensure a safe environment at home; including who is in the home and their sobriety; • That the children undergo random drug/alcohol testing after their visits at home. [ 200 ] IN DEFAULT OF AN AGREEMENT, ORDERS that the contacts take place on weekends from 5 p.m. to Sunday 5 p.m.; [ 201 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment more particularly that they meet with the Youth protection worker on a regular basis to update their situation; [ 202 ] ORDERS that the parents and the children take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 203 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents undergo a full addictions assessment and that follows recommendations; [ 204 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 205 ] THE WHOLE for one year for Y and X and until the age of majority for Z , namely [...], 2021; [ 206 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgement; __________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q.

Me Alexandra Provost Applicant’s attorney Me Anthony Ciarallo Attorney for the parents Me Alissa Provost Z and Y’s attorney Me Précilla Hijazi X’s attorney

Hearing dates : July 20, 23 and 24, 2020 Date of signature : July 31, 2020