2019 QCCQ 15099, 2019 QCCQ 15099

Protection de la jeunesse — 194679 2019 QCCQ 15099 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Division No.: 640-41-002279-195 640-41-002280-193 DATE: July 15, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE DENISE DESCÔTEAUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [… ], 2015 Y, born on [… ], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in Town A, District A Applicant And A, residing and domiciled at [ … ] , District A, but detained in the Centre A at the time of the hearing; Mother And B, residing and domiciled at [ … ] , District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38, 75 and 91 Y.P.A., R.S.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 ] The Director of Youth Protection working in Town A submits an application to the Court seeking to have the security and development of X, 3 years old, and Y, 5 years old, declared to be in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (1) (iii) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act . After the beginning of the hearing, the applicant amended his proceeding, removing the ground of endangerment under

section 38 ( e )

(2) YPA; [ 2 ] POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 3 ] At the time of the hearing, the mother was incarcerated (April 4, 2019) but represented by Mtre Felix St-Amand. She recognized that the security and development of her children are in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (1) (iii) and (

c) and she agreed with the measures but asked for her children to be returned to her when she is released from detention; [ 4 ] The father was absent but represented by Mtre Angele Tommasel. He recognized that the security and development of his children are in danger under

section 38 ( b ) (1) (iii) and (

c) and agrees with the measures [ 5 ] Mtre Caroline Jennis represented the children and submitted to the Court that the suggested measures were in their best interest. Hers is a legal mandate considering the young age of the two children. [ 6 ] ISSUES [ 7 ] The issues are: - Are the security and development of the children, X and Y, in danger? - If so, under what

section of Youth Protection Act ? - Considering the best interest of the children, what are the measures to be applied to put an end to the situation? [ 8 ] FACTS [ 9 ] The evidence is made up of admissions by the parents, the occurrence report dated February 14, 2019, submitted by the […] Regional Police Force of Town A concerning the mother, two occurrence history reports submitted by the […] Regional Police Force of

Town A concerning the mother and father, an evaluation report signed on May 6, 2019, and the testimony of the social worker, [social worker 1]. [ 10 ] The parents had a relationship that lasted nine years. Together they had two children: Y (5 years old) and X (3 years old). Their relationship was highly conflictual. [ 11 ] The mother lives at […] , with X, Y, Z and C (15 years old). [ 12 ] The parents are separated and the mother is the children’s main caregiver. [ 13 ] The father is presently living at D’s house because he does not have his own. [ 14 ] The father has no contact with the mother and avoids her.

They have a history of domestic violence. The father fears the mother. He's afraid the mother could make new accusations against him. [ 15 ] The mother has alcohol consumption issues. On several occasions, when she was intoxicated, the mother displayed aggressive behaviour towards the children. On these occasions, the mother would insult and yell at all the children. [ 16 ] On February 14, 2019, the DYP and the police had to intervene at the family’s house because the mother was allegedly violent and intoxicated in the presence of the children.

The mother left her three children alone at home and drove her ATV with C, while intoxicated. That same night, the DYP took immediate protective measures and entrusted the children to D, the father’s sister. [ 17 ] Despite her age, the c hild X went to the airport by herself to find her father.

She took a wrong turn, however, and a stranger picked her up and brought her to the office of the DYP. [ 18 ] The older sibling was found at another house and disclosed that she was hiding from the mother, who was highly intoxicated; [ 19 ] On February 15, 2019, the DYP went to see the mother who was still intoxicated; [ 20 ] The children’s older sibling confirmed that the mother had physically assaulted her the previous night and that she did not want to live there anymore longer; [ 21 ] On March 13, 2019, the DYP had to cancel a visit between the mother and the children because of the mother’s intoxication.

On that same day, the police had to intervene with the mother on two (2) more occasions because she was still intoxicated; [ 22 ] The mother’s cooperation with the DYP is difficult. In regard to the father, the cooperation is good. He is present and available.

He is transparent with the applicant and does not hesitate to ask for help. [ 23 ] ANALYSIS [ 24 ] Considering the mother’s behaviour, her alcohol consumption issues, the fact that she doesn’t acknowledge the situation and minimizes the impact of her alcohol consumption on her children, the fact that she was arrested and detained due to that consumption, the conflictual relationship between the mother and the father, the fact that the children are exposed to domestic violence, and the evidence, the Court has no hesitation in declaring the security and development of the children to be in danger. [ 25 ] Having declaredthe security and development of the children to be in danger, the Court proceeded with a hearing on applicable measures; [ 26 ] The children need to be in a safe and stable environment until the mother proves that she is able to remain sober and assume her role toward her children. [ 27 ] A social study was filed as evidence.

The father did not contest the recommendations made therein. The mother did not contest the recommendations but asked for the children to be returned to her as soon as she is released from jail.. The evidence shows that she is able to be a good mother when she is sober. However, she is no closer to stopping her consumption. For the moment, these facts preclude the possibility of reintegration as it is not an appropriate measure for her children.

The social worker is very surprised that the mother agreed with the recommendation considering the current climate between the father and the mother. [ 28 ] Presently, the father takes care of his children at his sister’s place because he is homeless. He is in the process of getting a house and would like to have his children with him. During the evaluation, the father quit his construction training to take care of his children. He also demonstrated good judgment and discussed with the worker social what to do about the mother’s access if she was intoxicated. The father has the complete support of his sister, Ms.

D, who has agreed to have his children with her at her place. [ 29 ] The father does not hesitate to seek help from social services when he needs it, such as support with the children. The father has offered impressive cooperation, he has taken the necessary steps and is proactive in improving his life with his children. [ 30 ] The children are happy to be cared for by their father. They are well when they are with him. [ 31 ] Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court endorses the recommendations.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS this application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X born on […], 2015, and Y born on […], 2013, are in danger under the

section 38 ( b ) (1) (iii) and (

c) of the Youth Protection Act .

[ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the children X and Y to their father; [ 35 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and their mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection regarding frequency and terms including the presence of a third party, if deemed necessary; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from displaying any violent behaviour in the presence of the children; [ 38 ] CONSIDERING the consent given by the mother , ORDERS the mother to seek help through social services regarding her substance abuse and personal issues; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through social services regarding his impulsivity and violent behaviour; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parent’s presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement in the services provides; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically in person or by telephone to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard and in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation endangering the security and development of the child. [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel, and assistance to the children and the children’s family until May 31, 2020; ENTRUST the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; __________________________________ DENISE DESCÔTEAUX, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Caroline Daniel Cain Lamarre Attorney for the Applicant Mtre. Caroline Jennis Legal Aid Office of Town B Attorney for the Child Mtre Félix St-Amand Attorney for the Mother Mtre Angele Tommasel Attorney for the Father Date of hearing: May 17, 2019