2019 QCCQ 11536, 2019 QCCQ 11536

Protection de la jeunesse — 192327 2019 QCCQ 11536 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000398-182; 614-41-000397-184; 614-41-000396-186 DATE: January 10, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [COSIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT and X, born on [...], 2013 614-41-000398-182 and Y, born on [...], 2015 614-41-000397-184 and Z, born on [...], 2017 614-41-000396-186 CHILDREN and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act , C.Q.L.R., 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits motions asking the Court to declare that the security and development of the three children are endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 1°

i) and 38 e) 1°) of the Youth Protection Act . The oldest, X, is five years old, Y is three years old, and the youngest, Z, is 22 months old. [ 2 ] For the hearing, the mother, present, is represented by Mtre Marie-Ève Bartkowiak, and the father, also present, by Mtre Yan Massé. Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub acts on behalf of the children and Mtre Magdalena Lempicka represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection are not challenged by the parents.

The only thing that is contested is one of the alleged motives to declare that the security and development of the children are endangered namely, the fact that the children were submitted to physical abuse or unreasonable methods of upbringing. [ 4 ] Until recently, the mother had no stable home. For the time being, she lives at her mother’s. [ 5 ] In September, the mother left the children with the paternal grandfather who entrusted the children to the father.

On at least one occasion, the father left the children with his girlfriend in Town A to go out drinking. [ 6 ] Since the father was unable to care for the children, the paternal grandfather brought the children to the Director of Youth Protection who entrusted them to their mother under the condition that she stay at the women’s shelter in Town . [ 7 ] Once she was living at the women’s shelter, the mother was often overwhelmed with the care of the children, yelling at them.

At one point, the mother asked that the two older children be removed from her care. [ 8 ] On November 3 rd , the mother was asked to leave the shelter as she was not respecting the rules. [ 9 ] The mother admits that she has been victim of conjugal violence. [ 10 ] When the Youth Protection Worker met with the oldest, X, this one confirmed that the father was verbally abusive towards him and his siblings.

[ 11 ] When the mother testified about physical abuse or inappropriate gestures from the father towards the children, she describes mainly that they were pushed aside. [ 12 ] At the hearing the Court already declared that the security and development of the children were endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 1°

i) and took under advisement the second alleged motive which was: unreasonable methods of upbringing. [ 13 ] The Court comes to the conclusion that the facts reported by the mother and the child do not meet the requirements of 38.2 as for the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency. [ 14 ] We have to remind ourselves that the child did not testify and the Director of Youth Protection did not ask the Court for an exemption from testifying for X.

So, this is basically hearsay. [ 15 ] The Court does not come to the conclusion that there is preponderant evidence concerning this alleged motive. [ 16 ] The parents declare that they are now back together and that the mother will leave for a therapy in Town C a few days following the hearing. The decision of the mother is a sound one, very appropriate. By this decision, she shows that she is able to take the necessary steps to resolve her problems and to fulfill her obligations towards her children.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children, X, Y and Z are endangered pursuant to

section 38 1°

b) i) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the children to the care of the parents; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the family for a period of nine months; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to take the necessary steps to attend a treatment centre as soon as possible and to follow the recommendations made by the professionals; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to fully collaborate with the professionals to improve their relationship and develop the communication between them; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES any professional working with the family to share information with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the three children to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town D on February 19, 2019 __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub avocats Inc. Counsel for the child Mtre Marie-Ève Bartkowiak Larouche & Girard Counsel for the mother Mtre Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the father

Date of hearing: January 10, 2019