2015 QCCQ 8395, 2015 QCCQ 8395

Protection de la jeunesse — 15455 2015 QCCQ 8395 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse » N° : 525-41-028958-148 DATE : 21 janvier 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE LUCIE GODIN ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de: X Né le […] 2010 Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse Requérante -et- A -et- B Parents mis en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents. Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.p.j.). [ 1 ] À la demande et du consentement de toutes les parties, le Tribunal procède à une enquête commune dans la situation de Y et de X. [ 2 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en vertu de l'article 38 de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (L.p.j.) dans laquelle la requérante, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse (DPJ), allègue que la sécurité ou le développement est compromis en vertu des articles 38c), 38b)1; 38b)1iii et 38e)1 de L.p.j. [ 3 ] En conséquence, la requérante recommande au Tribunal de confier l'enfant à la mère de même que certaines autres mesures visant à corriger la situation notamment des mesures d'aide à la mère et au père afin de régler leurs difficultés personnelles et un suivi social pour une période de six mois à compter de ce jour. [ 4 ] Le mère admet l'essentiel des faits allégués dans la requête et exprime son accord avec les recommandations.

Le père admet les faits portés à sa connaissance et exprime son accord avec les recommandations. Par ailleurs, il précise qu'une recommandation en lien avec son problème d'agressivité est acceptable dans la mesure où il prend les moyens nécessaires pour régler ses difficultés comportementales. [ 5 ] Il est prêt à en discuter avec l'intervenante sociale. [ 6 ] Le procureur de l'enfant, après avoir entendu l'ensemble de la preuve, soumet que les recommandations de la Directrice sont dans l'intérêt de l'enfant.

État de compromission [ 7 ] Tenant compte des admissions formulées par la mère et par le père de même que la preuve documentaire, le Tribunal conclut que la sécurité et le développement de l'enfant sont compromis pour les motifs allégués. [ 8 ] Le Tribunal retient les éléments suivants : [ 9 ] From May to November 2013, the parents participated in a psychological follow-up at the CLSC, with mitigated results. [ 10 ] Since January 16, 2014 following an incident that required police intervention, the parents have separated and the child has remained with the mother.

But the father declares that they were already separated when the incident occurred. [ 11 ] Since January 2014, the father has conditions imposed by the Criminal Court not to contact the mother, unless for purposes of exercising access rights.

[ 12 ] There are ongoing proceedings at Superior Court to determine custody and access rights. When the motion was filed, the proceedings where ongoing.

These proceedings are now completed. [ 13 ] On a provisional basis, the mother has custody and the father now has unsupervised access rights to the child. [ 14 ] The mother stated that the child was exposed to frequent incidents of conjugal violence, however, even if the father admits these incidents, he denies that they were frequent. [ 15 ] The child has been witness to prolonged parental conflict and is negatively affected by it . [ 16 ] The mother is overwhelmed and has difficulty putting in place structure for the child and the child's sibling. [ 17 ] The mother states that she's open to receive support but is not able to mobilize herself of follow through to receive assistance for herself and the child. [ 18 ] The parents did not collaborate with the services proposed by the Director of Youth Protection.

Mesures [ 19 ] Dans un rapport déposé sous la cote D-2, [intervenante 1], personne désignée par la Directrice, analyse ainsi l'importance de l'implication de la Directrice dans la vie de cette famille. Elle s'exprime ainsi : "There were concerns that Ms. B was unable to maintain a stable daily routine and that the children were at a continued risk of neglect because of Ms. B instability related to he feelings of being overwhelmed and her difficulty mobilizing to ensure that the children's needs are met.

To address these concerns an Intervention Terminale was attempted, but failed and signing voluntary measures was not possible, since there remained a real disconnect between DYP and Ms. B's understanding or the problem. However, since August 2014 Ms. B has ameliorated the situation, Y has begun art therapy sessions and Ms. B has made a connection with a CLSC social worker for punctual needs. Ms.

B has been able to mobilize to ensure that her children's needs are addressed as well addressing stressors in the environment such as signing Y up for school bus transport and reducing the children's extra-curricular activities. This coupled with the support of the educator in working on improving her parenting has allowed Ms. B to fully take responsibility of her role as a parent for the better of her children. She reports that currently she does not have the same feeling of being stressed and overwhelmed and has gained insight into DYP's concerns for the children.

There were also concerns that the children were exposed to conjugal violence. Although the parents have no intention of reconciliation the children have been exposed to psychological ill-treatment in the form of overt acts of rejection and denigration and indirect violence (conjugal violence) from Mr. A. The first evaluation found that the children were no longer at risk because Mr. A had supervised access. Currently these restrictions have been lifted and Superiour Court has given Mr.

A unsupervised access every other weekend, two non consecutive weeks in the summer and one of the winter holidays as well as allowing Ms. B the ability to call upon Mr. A to offer her physical assistance with the children as per the Superiour Court Judgement of November 19, 2014. Mr. A has displayed anger, aggression and rage and although he would have reported in the Superiour Court psycho-social assessment that he has sought help for his anger issues there appears to have been little improvement. This is a concern for DYP such that the children's long term exposure to Ms.

A's anger, aggression and violence could undermine their psychological integrity and cognitive, emotional or social development. Mr. A has consistently been unavailable which does not support his stated willingness to work collaboratively with DYP. Also, Ms.

B has difficulty managing her children's behaviour and does not fully understand that her children's experience of conjugal violence, exposure to psychological ill-treatment coupled with her instability could have an impact on the children's healthy development [1] ." [ 20 ] L'intervenante a identifié les buts et objectifs prévu par l'intervention qu'elle énumère ainsi : - That the parents do not expose the children to conjugal violence; - That the children are not exposed to overt acts of psychological ill-treatment; - That the children attend school and day care; - That Y receives psychological follow-up; - That Ms.

B improve her parenting skills; - That Mr. A address his anger; - That Ms.

B address her personal issues; - That the parents are able to provide the children with stability, routine and structure [2] . [ 21 ] La mère a exprimé sa volonté de poursuivre son implication dans les mesures proposées par la Directrice, se dit satisfaite de l'évolution de la situation et voit l'impact positif sur son enfant. [ 22 ] Le père a exprimé son insatisfaction dans la manière dont les faits ont été rapportés par la requérante. [ 23 ] Par ailleurs, il reconnaît qu'il a un rôle à jouer pour permettre à ses enfants d'évoluer dans un climat familial calme, stable ou la violence qu'elle soit physique ou verbale, n'existe pas. [ 24 ] Le père a aussi exprimé sa volonté de collaborer avec les intervenants sociaux.

[ 25 ] Ainsi, tenant compte de l'évaluation de la situation de l'enfant, ses besoins, les forces et les difficultés des parents, le Tribunal conclut que les recommandations de la requérante sont dans l'intérêt de l'enfant. [ 26 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of his mother; [ 30 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father receive services to address his issues of anger; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother receive supportive services to address her personal issues, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that she agrees to do so; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the father meet with the DYP when requested to do so; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share relevant information with the treating professionals working with the family; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q.

Me Nadia Sabik Procureur de la DPJ Me Alexis Lauzon Procureur de l'enfant Date d’audience : 21 janvier 2015 LG/lf