2021 QCCQ 10677, 2021 QCCQ 10677

Protection de la jeunesse — 214688 2021 QCCQ 10677 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002549-209 DATE: February 23, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 1, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2016 [OCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in [...] 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 child X, born on [...], 2016, are endangered under paragraphs (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the child to a foster family, with a possible reintegration under the parents’ care when the situation allows it, until November 30, 2021. [ 3 ] X has 2 siblings, Y, 6 months old and Z, 3 years old. The Court is also seized with their situation. Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered under the 4 grounds of endangerment and she agrees with the placement, but asks that the children be entrusted to her as soon as she could have her own apartment. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Geneviève Lucas. Due to his mental state, Me Lucas was not able to have a clear mandate from him and a postponement would have not helped the situation as it was impossible to know if his situation is temporary or not.

For the best interest of the child, the Court decided to proceed and allowed Me Lucas to remain to protect the father’s rights. [ 6 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, she submits that the situation should be declared endangered and that the measures suggested are in his best interest. Facts [ 7 ] On September 1, 2020, the DYP received a report regarding a risk of physical abuse due to conjugal violence exposure and a situation of psychological ill-treatment.

At that time, the family was living in Town A where the father comes from, but they moved in Town B where the mother has her family. As they had no place to stay in Town B, they were moving from one house to another one. [ 8 ] The day before, the father would have assaulted the mother and the child, Z. At that time, the father was intoxicated and the two other children were present and witness the scene. The mother was able to take the necessary steps to protect her children, and she found a safe place to stay with them. [ 9 ] The father is schizophrenic and paranoid due to marijuana consumption.

He does not take his medication and can become aggressive. When the father take is medication and is sober, he takes very good care of his children. He is also involved in his Social Services follow-up. Unfortunately, his situation is making ups and downs.

[ 10 ] After that event, the mother decided to move with her children from Town A to Town B where her family is living. But as she has no place to stay in Town B, they were moving from one house to another one. Once in Town B, she was met by the DYP and she confirmed the event of August 31, saying that it was not the first time such event happened. The mother also confirms that the conjugal violence could be bidirectional. She also admits her drinking issues, but mentions that the situation improved with the help of the Social Services.

On this aspect, she wants to continue a follow-up in Town B. [ 11 ] On September 9, the mother presented herself at the DYP office and said that she absolutely wants the father to come living with her in Town B as she was tired of taking care of the children alone. She threatened to give up on her 3 children if the father is not coming back with her. The DYP worker discussed with the mother to find a solution, and the Social Services were also involved. [ 12 ] On September 13, the same situation occurred. The mother called the emergency line.

She was crying and she asked the worker to come to pick up the children. Finally, when the worker arrived, the mother was calm. She was concerned by the father well-being because she heard that he was hospitalized for a broken arm. The worker helps her to have more information about him and she was reinsured. She said being fine to take care of the children. The father’s arrival in Town B was scheduled for September 16. [ 13 ] On October 5, 2020, the mother arrived again at the DYP office totally disorganized. She asked to entrust the children.

She threatens to burn the houses of the village in order to go in jail until she could have her own house in Town B. She received help from the Social Services at that time. Y was with her at that time. She left Y with the worker, left the building and came back a few minutes later with a bag of items for Y. Later in the day, she brought Z and left him alone in front of the DYP office. She did not pick up X at the day care. [ 14 ] This day, the DYP took an immediate protective measure and entrusted the children to a foster family.

On October 9, the Court rendered a provisional measure and maintained the children in a foster home and recommended that the two oldest be entrusted to the maternal grandmother and that the youngest, despite being entrusted to a foster family, could spend her day at the maternal grandmother’s house. [ 15 ] Since that date, the children remained where they were and Y had a daily contact with her parents at the grandmother’s place.

As the mother started to work and was less available during the week days, the DYP authorized a contact during the weekend. [ 16 ] The contacts are going very well, and the children are always very happy to see their parents. [ 17 ] The mother has a regular follow-up with the Social Services and she appreciates the services she receives. She addresses her anger and emotion management issues. She also receives help to have her own apartment. [ 18 ] The father does not have a regular follow-up, but he sometimes comes with the mother to participate to the follow-up she has at the Social Services.

He does not have a medical follow-up neither as he had when he was living in Town A. The mother is convinced that the mental health symptoms are due to his back pain, but according to her, he has no real mental health issues. [ 19 ] The DYP agrees to start a reintegration as soon as the situation allows it. For that, the mother has to continue to be stable, to continue to visit her children regularly and to participate in her follow-up with the Social Services. [ 20 ] Until then, the DYP would like to maintain the children where they are currently. The grandmother is accredited as a foster family.

Analysis [ 21 ] The father was not in a position to make any admission, but the mother admitted all the facts justifying the declaration of endangerment for the reasons alleged by the DYP: - 38 (c): psychological ill-treatment due to conjugal violence and reject; - 38 (b) (1) i: neglect in terms of basic needs; - 38 (e) (2): serious risk of physical abuse due to conjugal violence; - 38 (b) (2): serious risk of neglect due to parents’ mental health issues. [ 22 ] The evidence provided and the admissions support this declaration. [ 23 ] The parents’ situation had been very unstable before they moved in Town B and also for the first month after their arrival.

The father’s mental health issues created a lot of instability and his situation is currently unknown as he has no medical follow-up. [ 24 ] The mother is doing much better. She moved back to Town B to be closer to her relatives, and that was a good choice as her mother is present since the beginning to take care of the children. [ 25 ] Since that time, the mother took steps to improve her situation.

She found a job, she receives professionals’ help for her personal issues and she participates in this follow-up on a voluntary basis which is much more beneficial for her. [ 26 ] Now, she has to find an apartment for her and her children. The Court considers that the situation evolved positively enough on the mother’s side to think about a reintegration shortly. That being said, the father’s situation is too uncertain for now to speak about a reintegration under both parents’ care.

Also, the fact that he was not able to give a clear mandate to his lawyer for this hearing, is not to a nature to reinsure the Court on his situation. The father was invited to address his mental health issue with a doctor. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2016, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) i, (b) (2), (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS X and Z to their maternal grandmother as a foster family, with a possible reintegration under the mother’s care when the situation allows it; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES daily contacts between the parents and the children at the grandmother’s place; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services regarding their personal issues; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS the father to be assessed by a doctor regarding his mental health issues; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS the parents to remain sober and without any violent behaviours in the presence of the children; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the family; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Geneviève Lucas attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 23, 2021