2019 QCCQ 10295, 2019 QCCQ 10295

Protection de la jeunesse — 19951 2019 QCCQ 10295 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34227-181 Date: February 14, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2006 [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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 14, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] 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 twelve year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect, psychological ill-treatment and physical abuse to which she is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with a similar application regarding the child’s younger half-sibling whose situation is addressed in a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated July 19, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. as background information, the child was known to youth protection in the past for issues that included exposure to parents’ conjugal violence, and physical abuse by the father, as appears from the judgments, filed en liasse as Exhibit D-2; 3.2. furthermore, the child’s younger half sibling, who is in the mother’s care, is currently under youth protection for risks of neglect; 3.3. there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs; 3.4. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of her father that could cause her harm and the father fails to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; 3.5. the child is the victim of bodily injury by her father and the father fails to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; 3.6. the child disclosed incidents whereby the father hit and punched her with his hands and also hit her with a belt, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) on June 28, 2018, the child who was distraught and crying, disclosed that, on the last day of school, her father had hit her on the right side of the neck under her jaw, saying that she was “giving attitude”;

b) on July 17, 20918, the child explained that in May 2018, when she was in trouble at school, the father hit her with a belt, then stepped on her feet, grabbed her by the wrists, threw her on the bed and began punching her; 3.7. the child also indicated that her father would say she was stupid and problematic and threatened to take a pipe and beat her; 3.8. the father denies hitting the child, but he agrees for her to reside with the mother; 3.9. on June 22, 2018, the child was entrusted to her mother where she remained with the father’s agreement, under a provisional consent (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] The hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on October 23, 2018. [ 6 ] The father, though duly informed of the proceedings, told the social worker that he did not want to be involved, that he did not intend to appear before the Court and that he agreed to the measures sought by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in the father’s absence. [ 8 ] The Director then recommended that the child be entrusted to her mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 9 ] The mother, assisted by Me Shapiro Knight, admitted all the facts alleged in support of the application with the exception of paragraph 3.3 which she denied as drafted.

She agreed to all the proposed measures, but only for an interim period of four months. [ 10 ] When the hearing was continued on February 14, 2019, she expressed her opposition to any ongoing social follow-up and asked that the file be closed. [ 11 ] The child was represented by Me Sureau who did not make any admissions but acknowledged that the child’s situation is in danger and that the measures are in her best interest.

When the hearing was continued, she argued that ongoing social services remained necessary but for a shorter period than the additional nine months recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 12 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Copy of the child’s birth certificate; D-2: Court Report, prepared by [social worker 2], dated October 16, 2018; D-3: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 3], dated February 4, 2019. [ 13 ] In

summary, the necessity of the Director of Youth Protection’s initial involvement with the family for the alleged reasons was admitted. [ 14 ] The only question in dispute is whether and for how long ongoing Director of Youth Protection services are warranted. [ 15 ] The mother essentially argues that services are no longer required and, in any event, that the Director of Youth Protection has done nothing to help her and that she does not expect that to change. [ 16 ] The evidence establishes that the social worker initially assigned to work with the family was no longer able to do so and that a temporary worker was assigned until a replacement could be found.

Thus the new worker was only assigned on February 4, 2019, ten days before the hearing. [ 17 ] The temporary worker’s involvement was admittedly very limited. [ 18 ] However, the question must always be analysed from the child’s perspective. [ 19 ] When the mother was asked how the child was doing, she answered that she did not discuss the incident involving her father with her and believed that the less they talked about it the better. [ 20 ] Other than the mother’s very general and somewhat dismissive statement, there is no way of knowing whether the child is coping or receiving adequate support. [ 21 ] Although it is certainly regrettable that a permanent worker was not available for the family before February 4, the mother also played a role in limiting the Director of Youth Protection’s access to the family. [ 22 ] In addition, school authorities could not be reached in due time to monitor the child’s and family’s situation. [ 23 ] Finally, the mother has been proactive in attending an anger management program and has very recently begun individual therapy. [ 24 ] Although these steps are extremely positive, it remains to be seen whether the mother will successfully put into practice what she is learning, and also maintain her sobriety. [ 25 ] Under the circumstances, given the limited evidence to show that the situation has been redressed from the child’s perspective, the Court finds that it would be premature to conclude that the child’s security or development are no longer in danger. [ 26 ] However, considering the positive steps taken by the mother, a shorter period than the additional nine months recommended by

the Director of Youth Protection should be sufficient. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (2) , 38 (

c) and 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of physical or verbal violence; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking not to consume any alcohol in the child’s presence; [ 32 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to ensure that the child attends school regularly; [ 33 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that the child is adequately supervised; [ 34 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s commitment to benefit from individual counselling as well as of her undertaking to continue with services for anger management; [ 35 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to help the mother find low income housing more suitable to her needs, as well as the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to provide financial assistance to the family insofar as possible; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by consent between the parties, taking into account the child’s wishes; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child claims not to want any contact with her father for the time being; [ 38 ] ORDERS the father not to use any form of physical discipline with the child; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] THE WHOLE until June 21, 2019.

Signed on February 21, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Angela Nevard Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maïa Sureau Attorney for the child Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the mother TD/vl