2019 QCCQ 15209, 2019 QCCQ 15209

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910364 2019 QCCQ 15209 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000931-193 DATE: April 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 15, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the 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.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2006, are endangered under sections 38 (b) (2), (

c) and (e) (1) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . Position of the parties [ 2 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. She admits some of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. [ 3 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me St-Amand. He admits some of the allegations, and he agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The motives of compromising are not admitted by the parents. [ 5 ] X, who is 12 years old, is present and represented by Me Jennis. She admits some of the allegations and she agrees with the measures especially if she is entrusted with her paternal grandmother.

History of the situation [ 6 ] On October 16, 2014 , the situation of the youth was submitted to the Court. She was 8 years old. The parents had alcohol and drug addiction issues and also conjugal violence issues which affect the child. The mother could be abusive toward the child when she was intoxicated. During the evaluation, the parents admitted the seriousness of the situation and agreed to seek help. But nothing changes and the police intervention was needed many times for conjugal events in the presence of the child.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [2] and entrusted her to her paternal grandmother’s care until June 17, 2015. [ 7 ] On June 17, 2015 , the Court noted that the parents reduced their alcohol consumption, but did not really seek external help. They still had a violent relationship, but the events of violence are less frequent. They have regular contact with the child, and she is doing very well in her foster family.

The Court maintained the child under the grandmother’s care and authorized reintegration with the parents if the situation allows it, until December 11, 2015. [ 8 ] On February 28, 2016 , the evidence showed that the parents made efforts to avoid fighting in front of the children and to reduce their alcohol consumption. The mother was pregnant and stop drinking. The children came to visit their parents for many sleepovers during the week and everything went well. The extended family is supportive in the process of reintegration.

The Court entrusts the child to her parents and ordered that services of an external educator be provided, the whole until August 19, 2016. Facts [ 9 ] The situation which brought the DYP previously reappeared.

[ 10 ] On October 30, 2017, the worker on the call had to intervene as the parents were intoxicated and fighting in the presence of the children. [ 11 ] On January 29, 2018, the DYP worker on the call was required to intervene at the family house. The parents were together at home and were both intoxicated. The parents had no more milk for the youngest child. The father had left the house with the baby. He was found by the police. The other children, including X were at the grandmother’s place at that time. That was the first report. [ 12 ] On August 3, 2018, another intervention was required.

Again, the father was intoxicated and he had punched the mother in front of the children. He kicked out the mother outside the house with the two oldest and stay inside with the baby. The police intervention was also requested. [ 13 ] The evaluation reveals that since 2107, many other police interventions were required and from August 8, 2018, to November 15, 2018, the father was detained. [ 14 ] On September 21, 2018, X disclosed that her mother hit her with her fist and that was not the first time.

She also declared that her mother could be violent against her siblings. [ 15 ] On January 9, 2019, X said to the worker that their parents consume and fight around once a week. [ 16 ] On March 1, 2019, following a provisional hearing the youth was entrusted again to her grandmother. [ 17 ] X is attending school in a French program. [ 18 ] The grandmother came from Town A to testify. For sure, she is very sad to see the situation of the parents. She explains to the Court that the society changed a lot and not for the best. The situation was totally different when she was young.

Alcohol and drugs were not available. [ 19 ] X is her older grandchild and she is particularly attached to her, but she insists on the facts that she loves all her grandchildren. She understands that the hearing for the two other children will take place at another moment, but she says that they are also welcome at her place anytime it’s needed. Analysis [ 20 ] The situation of X is the same as the one justifying the Court intervention in 2014.

At that time the parents were able to reduce their alcohol consumption and doing so their aggressiveness. [ 21 ] But the file was closed in August 2016, and the old habits came back as soon as 2017. For this reason the situation of X is endangered. [ 22 ] It’s sad to see that many police interventions were made and reports were received since 2017, but nothing was done until February 2019.

During that time, the children, because it was not only X, were in contact with alcohol consumption, conjugal violence and this has an important impact on their development. [ 23 ] Also X was the victim of unreasonable educational methods because of the mother’s lack of patience. This aspect was also known from the DYP during the previous intervention. [ 24 ] Considering the family situation was documented in the DYP file, the Court can’t understand why it was so long to intervene. The risk for the children was very high, and consequences could have occurred.

Long-term consequences could also occur on X’s development. [ 25 ] Fortunately, X benefit from the loving and caring of her grandmother who is able and willing to take care of her. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2006, are endangered under sections 38 (b) (2), (

c) and (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with her grandmother, C as a foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES that the youth be reintegrated under the parents’ care as soon as the situation allows it; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth, her sibling and the parents are facilitated and the frequency and terms are determined by the Director of the Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures ordered by the Court; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother remain without any violent behaviour towards the youth;

[ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their personal issues such as conjugal violence and substance abuse; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the parents and Ms.

C; [ 37 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigation in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 39 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] THE WHOLE until February 28, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Félix St-Amand, attorney for the father Date of hearing: April 17, 2019