2012 QCCQ 8662, 2012 QCCQ 8662

2012 QCCQ 8662 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « YOUTH DIVISION »

N° : 540-41-003590-121 DATE : May 25 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X Born on […], 1994 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for protection in conformity with the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q., c.

P-34.1 ) filed by the Director of Youth protection asking to declare that the security and the development of the adolescent X are in danger because she is subjected to psychological ill-treatment and physical abuse in the meaning of

Section 38

c) and e) 1) of the Act; [ 2 ] All of the formalities required by law having been complied with, the Court proceed with a joint hearing in the case of Y, X and Z pursuant to

section 77 of the Act. After considering the evidence adduced, the Court rendered an oral judgment without rising, of which these presents constituted the written version, with reasons, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Act. [ 3 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the Director's attorney asked to declare that the security and development of X be compromised for the same reasons and that she be entrusted to her mother with a social follow-up for until her majority, where both parents take the necessary means to ensure the safety of X, that Mr.

A seeks therapeutic help for his anger management, and that both parents and X actively participate to the measures proposed to correct the situation. [ 4 ] In support of the recommendations, the Director's attorney filed several reports and Mrs. [social worker 1], Director of Youth Protection's delegate, also testifies to explain in more details some of her conclusions. [ 5 ] The father Mr. A testifies.

Firstly, he admits that since his separation in 2005 with his ex-wife, the mother of his three (3) daughters, he had legal custody of them and that in some occasions, he could be overwhelmed mainly by Y's and X's behaviours. Regarding the last episode of violence who occurred on January 19 th , 2012, where he was physically violent against Y, he still minimized the physical abuse, blaming essentially his daughters attitude and the fact that she does not obey to his authority.

Furthermore, he confirms that at that time and in the past years, there were no communication between himself and the mother of the children, Mrs. B. However, since the filing of the three (3) petitions for protection, the relationship between him and the mother has improved and he agrees to receive help relating to his anger management and to control his violence. He also agrees with other measures proposed and to collaborate with the social follow-up, being concerned that Y is actually failing his school year because of her lack of attendancy. [ 6 ] The mother, Mrs. B testifies.

She recognises the facts described in the petitions for protection and the Court's reports, confirming that there were no communication between her and Mr. A in the past years. However, she reports that the situation with the father and her daughters led to a better communication between the parents since the girls were entrusted to her after the episode of violence of January 19 th , 2012. Futhermore, having being victim of domestic violence in her past relationship with Mr. A, she

understands and recognises that inadequate interventions have been done by the father towards her daughters. Now, there is improvement and they agreed on taking it day by day and to see how it will go with the girls.

Finally, she is in complete agreement with all the measures proposed by the Director and to take part to any measure who can help her and to protect her daughters. [ 7 ] As to X, duly represented by an attorney, she also recognises the situation and agrees with the measures proposed by the Director until her majority. [ 8 ] The Director of Youth Protection received a signalement concerning X and her siblings of January 20 th , 2012 further to the episode of violence who occurred at father's place and for which a police report has been filed.

This report revealed that Y has been victim of violence by her father on January 19 th , 2012, and that it was not the first time that Mr. A used violence against her. Furthermore, the older sister, X, also reported that she has been victim of physical abuse from her father in the last months, namely in the month of June 2011. The father was arrested and released on January 20 th and a restraining order has been ordered between him and Y and X. This restraining order has been removed on May 10 th , 2012.

As to the criminal charges, the next step is scheduled on July 19 th , 2012. [ 9 ] The Director of Youth protection filed also a motion for provisional measures on February 15 th , 2012 in the situation of Y, X and Z and on February 16 th , after having heard the parties, the Court decided to entrust the three (3) girls to their mother with measures, allowing Z to have contacts with her father without supervision, because she has not been subjected to physical violence by her father. The hearing on the three (3) petitions was scheduled on April 17 th , but the hearing was postponed on May 25 th .

The interim measures ordered on February 16 th remained the same. In fact, the youngest child Z was living with her father and it was mentioned in the last Court report that X and Y went sometimes to the father's home to visit him. [ 10 ] As it appears from the content of the Court reports, X and Y did not always respected parental authority of their father, Mr. A, who could used physical violence against them. Even Mr. A says that they have behavioural issues, we cannot say that they are serious behavioural disturbances in the meaning of the Youth protection Act .

As to Z, who lives with her father on week days and with her mother on the week-end to accommodate the school transportation, she has not been physically abuse from her father at the present time. But she could suffered from unintentional collateral physical injuries when her sisters have been subjected to physical ill-treatment by their father. More over, it is important to remind that both of her sisters declares that the abuse have started when they were around 13 or 14 years old. Therefore, Z needs to evolve in a secure and safe environment.

Finally, the Court recalls that Z has witnesses that her sisters can be subjected to violence by her father, Mr. A. [ 11 ] As to X, she is a teenage girl that will turn eighteen (18) years old in […] 2012, and she has been growing up in a verbal and violent environment for the past years. X and Y are described as been difficult teenagers by both parents, but this does not allow the father to use physical or verbal violence against them. X is no longer attending school but given her age, she will have to face and be responsible over her decision.

The situation is different regarding Y because she is only thirteen (13) years old and has the obligation to go to school. As it appears from the Court report prepared by Mrs. [social worker 1], between the beginning of the school year in September 2011 and May 15 th , Y missed 183 periods (about 46 days). Since she was entrusted to her mother on the 16 of February, she missed 111 periods (28 days) and she is failing her school year. Y must correct the situation and go to school on a regular basis and be supported by her parents. [ 12 ] Since the Director of Youth Protection intervene in his life, Mr.

A has not been physically nore verbally violent towards Y or X and the Court also recognises that he is very devoted to his daughters. His tense to loose control of his anger when his daughters disobey to his authority must be corrected and the Court understand that he agrees with the recommendations proposed, to collaborate with the social follow-up and to seek for help for his anger management.

Furthermore, the Court notices that the communication between the parents is more adequate and this has an impact on their children. [ 13 ] Given the facts who has been mentioned previously and the evolution of the family situation, taking also into consideration the testimony of the mother, the Court is convinced that the security and the development of the three (3) youngsters Y, X and Z are in danger for the reasons alleged by the Director and that the measures proposed in each file to correct the situation are required. [ 14 ] THEREFORE, AND FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are in danger because she is subjected to psychological ill-treatment and physical abuse in the meaning of

Section 38

c) and e) 1) of the Act; [ 16 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to her mother, Mrs. A; [ 17 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and her family until her age of majority, […], 2012; [ 18 ] ORDERS that X and her parents collaborate to the social follow-up; [ 19 ] RECOMMANDS Mr. A to seek therapeutic help for his anger management; [ 20 ] FORBIDS Mr.

A to use any physical or verbal violence against X; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, Centre de protection de l'enfance et de la jeunesse, who shall than see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] ORDERS enforcement of this order by any peace officer; if need be. __________________________________ FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q. Me Julie TASSÉ Director's attorney Me Hugues FOUCHER X's attorney