2011 QCCQ 9021, 2011 QCCQ 9021

Protection de la jeunesse — 112198 2011 QCCQ 9021 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-024490-112 N°: 525-41-024489-114 DATE: May 30, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the cases of: X Born on […], 2007 - and - Y Born on […], 2008 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 30, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the children declared compromised under

section 38, paragraphs b) 1) as the parents do not meet the children’s basic needs and e) 2) as there is a serious risk that the children be subject to unreasonable methods of upbringing by their. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The children are known to the Director of Youth Protection in relation to a past incident of conjugal violence between the parents; • On November 27, 2010, the Director of Youth Protection received a signalement with allegations of physical violence towards Y in the presence of X; • On December 6, 2010, the Director of Youth Protection received another signalement concerning the children with allegations of physical mal treatment and inappropriate supervision by the father; • The parents do not meet the children’s basic needs, more particularly: .

In June 2010, the mother informally delegated in writing to her parents her custody rights to the children while maintaining the father’s contacts; . From June to December 2010, the parents’ contacts with the children have been inconsistent with periods of absence on behalf of both parents; . In December 2010, the children began residing full time with the maternal grandparents;

. In March 2011, in collaboration with the youth protection delegate, the parents resumed contact with the children; . On April 4, 2011, the father failed to take the children for a schedules visit, without notifying the youth protection delegate and the maternal grandparents; . On April 11, 2011, the father showed up unexpectedly at the maternal grandparents’ home claiming a visit with the children; . On April 12, 2011, the father became highly verbally aggressive towards the youth protection worker and stated he wanted to have full weekends visits immediately; .

The father lives in a three bedroom apartment with his girlfriend, the child’s half-sibling, the father’s brother along with two cats and two large dogs walking freely around the apartment, one of which is a pit-bull; . There is concern about the stability of the father’s living arrangements in that he has also been living at his girlfriend’s mother’s home, with the children; . The girlfriend’s mother has alcohol abuse issues and has been known to be inebriated in the presence of the children; . Neither parent is currently assuming responsibility for the children’s regular medical follow-up; .

X was without a Medicare card from birth until March 2011; • The children run a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury by the father or being subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the father, more particularly: . On November 27, 2010, the father pushed his girlfriend to the floor after she had attempted to stop him from grabbing and shaking Y and roughly slapping her in the face; . The police was called, however no charges were laid against the father; .

There are concerns and reasons to believe that the father has been physically aggressive and spanked the children inappropriately on more that one occasion; . The father admits to having spanked the children in the past but denies being physically violent towards them. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their maternal grandparent's care for a period of one year. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 5 ] The father is not present at the hearing.

He informed the youth worker that he did not intend to present himself to the hearing. The father received a copy of the court report and the measures recommended by the Director were discussed with him at the Orientation table. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 6 ] The mother admits the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the recommended measures. However, the mother states that she wishes for the contacts with the children to include overnight visits when she gets her own apartment.

The mother says that she agrees to undergo a substance abuse assessment and participate in individual therapy to address this issue. She admits to smoking marijuana in the evenings, but not in the presence of the children. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in their best interest. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], human relations agent, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that overall the children are developing well in the care of their grandparents.

As for the parents, they are not in a position to regain custody of their children at this time. [ 9 ] The contacts between the children and their parents have been unstable which has been extremely confusing for them. Furthermore, neither parents is taking responsibility for the children’s medical follow-up. The parents need to collaborate with DYP in order for the situation to improve.

The father must address his anger issues and ensure that the children are not witness to any physical or verbal violence. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their maternal grandparents’ care for a period of one year. The children are young and therefore very vulnerable and they need a stable and loving living environment.

The parents must decide how they want to be involved in their children’s life as a long term plan will need to be put in place for the children. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 14 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of one year; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision by DYP or by a third party approved by DYP;

[ 17 ] ORDERS that the father ensure that the children are appropriately supervised in the presence of any animals; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the grandparents and the parents not tolerate that a person possess, consume or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the presence of the children; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not subject to physical discipline; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the children are not exposed to any forms of physical or verbal violence; [ 21 ] ORDERS the mother to undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo random drug testing; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother undergo a substance abuse assessment and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo an assessment; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate and complete an anger management program and RECOMMENDS that DYP suggest programs in which the father can participate; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents and the grandparents to collaborate with DYP, to meet with the youth workers upon request and to inform the youth worker of any change of address or telephone number in a delay of 24 hours; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsels and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed June 1, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Marie José Lavigueur (Counsel for the children) Date of hearing: May 30, 2011