2013 QCCQ 9834, 2013 QCCQ 9834

Protection de la jeunesse — 133011 2013 QCCQ 9834 CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] JD0798 COUR DU QUÉBEC CHAMBRE DE LA JEUNESSE N O : 525-41-027135-136 DATE : Le 11 juin 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE : L’HONORABLE JUGE ÉLAINE DEMERS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LA DIRECTRICE DE LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE et X Né […] 2013 enfants et A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT [1]

Article 38 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Par la présente, le tribunal confirme, motive et précise une décision rendue séance tenante le 11 juin 2013. [ 2 ] Le tribunal est saisi d'une requête en protection suivant l'article 38 de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse par laquelle la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse demande de déclarer compromis la sécurité et le développement de l'enfant, X . [ 3 ] Au soutien de sa requête, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse allègue : “3.1 There is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) as relevant background information, on August 16 th , 2012, the Honourable Justice Élaine Demers declared the security or development of the child’s sibling, Y, compromised due, namely, to the neglect of his basic needs by his parents and for a risk of neglect of his basic needs;

b) on August 16 th , 2012, the Honourable Justice Élaine Demers rendered interim measures to the effect that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster home with authorization to reintegrate him into his mother’s care is she were to be accepted and fully integrated to [Centre A], along with other specific measures as it appears in the court’s file no. 525-41-025634-122; the continuation of the 38 court hearing was postponed a few times and is now set for June 11 th , 2013;

c) the child’s sibling has developmental delays;

d) the parents were not providing the child’s sibling with appropriate stimulation;

e) the parents did not consistently attend the medical appointments of the child’s sibling even though he was born at twenty-five (25) weeks;

f) the parents struggled financially and were not providing enough food to the child’s sibling;

g) on several occasions, the family home was observed to be cluttered, untidy and with a strong odour of cigarette when the child’s sibling was still residing with his parents;

h) the father completed a program for his anger management issues on February 6 th , 2013;

i) however, the father has continued to be very aggressive with the staff of [Centre A], the youth protection workers and other professionals who have been involved with the family;

j) the father can be easily frustrated and impatient with the child during his supervised visits and has left some of the supervised visits before they were supposed to end;

k) the father continues to consume marijuana;

l) in March 2013, the father underwent a parental capacity assessment and it was concluded that he has poor parenting skills due, namely, to his anger management problems, lack of empathy and introspection, marijuana consumption and unstable mood;

m) concerns exist about the father’s mental health;

n) as for the mother, she underwent a parental capacity assessment during the summer of 2012 and it was concluded that she needed to be in a semi-supervised setting to take care of the child as she lacked parenting skills;

o) since February 18 th , 2013, the mother resides at [Centre A], the child’s sibling has been in her care weekdays and spending weekends at his foster home as the mother was returning to the father during weekends;

p) the mother has made a lot of gains since she integrated [Centre A];

q) however, the mother still needs ongoing support and supervision to take care of her children; 3.1 on April 17 th , 2013, the child was discharged from the hospital; 3.2 on April 17 th , 2013, immediate protective measures were applied and the child was entrusted to the mother at the condition that she reside at [Centre A] and not return to the family residence during weekends;”. [ 4 ] À la lumière de ce qui précède, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse recommande que l'enfant soit confié à sa mère à la condition qu’elle intègre [le Centre A] ou tout autre organisme autorisé par la DPJ, ainsi que d'autres mesures correctives, pour une période d'une année. [ 5 ] Au soutien de la requête, la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse dépose les rapports suivants: D-1: Declaration of live birth; D-2: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated June 4, 2013; D-3: Mother’s Parental Capacity Assessment, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated August 10, 2010; D-4: Father’s Parental Capacity Assessment, prepared by Dr.

Catherine Cloutier, dated March 28, 2013 (filed under

Article 294.1 C.p.c.); D-5: “Progress Report”, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated March 21, 2013 (filed under

Article 294.1 C.p.c.); D-6: Addendum to “Progress Report”, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated June 5, 2013 (filed under

Article 294.1 C.p.c.). [ 6 ] Le tribunal a entendu les témoignages suivant : madame [intervenante 4], intervenante sociale, madame [intervenante 5], intervenante [du Centre A] et les parents. [ 7 ] La preuve révèle que depuis quelques mois déjà, le frère aîné de X, Y, [2] vit avec sa mère [lau Centre A]. Quant à X, sujet de la présente requête, il y vit aussi depuis à peu près sa naissance. [ 8 ] L’évolution des deux enfants est on ne peut plus positive. Plus particulièrement, en ce qui a trait à X, [intervenante 1] écrit à son rapport (D-2) à la page 10 : “X was born healthy and without complications.

After being hospitalised at the age of 1 week due to a significant drop in weight, he appears to have recovered, and is currently gaining weight and developing within normal parameters. It has been observed that Ms. A appears to be bonding well with the baby and her interactions are appropriate.

Although she often requires prompting on what to do for the baby and requires assistance (i.e. feeding), she is receptive and follows through once given instructions.” [ 9 ] Quant au père, tel que nous l’avons souligné dans le dossier de Y au début de l’audition du 16 août 2012, monsieur semble bien collaborer en apparence mais en réalité c’est une toute autre chose. [ 10 ] Effectivement, il a assisté à 15 sessions pour régler son problème d’agressivité.

Son témoignage à la Cour, son attitude, ses remarques amènent le tribunal à constater que monsieur bénéficierait encore grandement d’autres sessions pour améliorer son problème d’agressivité. [ 11 ] Monsieur s’est soumis à une évaluation de ses capacités parentales tel que dit plus haut, mais les conclusions de l’évaluateur sont pour le moins, mitigées. [ 12 ] Quant aux contacts qu’il a avec son fils Y de même qu’avec le bébé, ils sont plus ou moins heureux, plus au moins assidus.

Il nous dira en Cour : « I want to get my family back together » mais en réalité il apparaît clair qu’il ne pose pas les gestes qu’il devrait faire pour faire en sorte que la famille soit réunie à nouveau. [ 13 ] Tel que demandé par Docteur Cloutier, il consent cependant à se soumettre à une évaluation psychiatrique et à une évaluation pour contrecarrer son problème de drogue.

[ 14 ] Est-il vraiment sincère ?

Nous le verrons. [ 15 ] De son côté, nous le répétons, la mère et les deux jeunes enfants évoluent bien mais il y a lieu, compte tenu de la lourdeur de la tâche pour madame, et compte tenu du fait que monsieur n’évolue pas actuellement dans le même sens que madame, d’ordonner ce qui est recommandé à la page 13 du rapport D-2. [ 16 ] PAR CONSÉQUENT ET POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES the security and development of X compromised because there is a serious risk that this child’s parents are not providing for him the basic needs (article 38 b) 2 o Youth Protection Act) ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to mother conditional on her residing at [le Centre A] or another program authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision and TAKES NOTICE that these contacts are actually twice a month for at least 2 hours; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that those contacts be increased; [ 22 ] ORDERS father, as he had agreed, to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and RECOMMENDS father to go through with the recommendations that could be made by the psychiatrist (medication); [ 23 ] ORDERS father, as he had agreed, to go to [Pavilion A] to have an assessment concerning his substance abuse problem; [ 24 ] TAKES NOTICE that father will go through his mental health issues the Town A crises centre; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS father to involve himself in an another Anger Management Program; [ 26 ] ORDERS both parents to ensure that the child is not exposed to cigarette smoke or drugs during all contacts visits; [ 27 ] ORDERS both parents to ensure that the child is not exposed to any verbal or physical violence; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period one (1) year; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that at the next meeting of father with social services that Mrs. [Social Worker 6] attends in order to act as sort of mediator between father and DYP; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

ÉLAINE DEMERS, J.C.Q. Me Adélia Ferreira Procureur de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse Me Pauline R. Laforce Procureur de l’enfant Me Marc Morin Procureur de la mère Me Josée Lefebvre Procureur du père ED/cd