2019 QCCQ 10300, 2019 QCCQ 10300

Protection de la jeunesse — 19956 2019 QCCQ 10300 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34458-182 Date: February 14, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother The parent JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 14, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a six year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect to which she is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with a similar application regarding the child’s sibling whose situation is addressed in a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated September 7, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. from October 2013 to July 2014, the child was the subject of an Agreement on Voluntary Measures due to the mother’ difficulties in providing for the child’s basic needs; 3.2. from November 2015 to February 2017, the child was the subject of a second and a third Agreement on Voluntary Measures due again to ongoing issues of neglect; 3.3. the child has remained in the mother’s care and there is a serious risk that she will not meet the child’s basic needs; 3.4. up to December 2017, the mother’s two other children also lived in her care; 3.5. the mother continued to have difficulties in organization, routine and structure; 3.6. the child regularly arrived late for school; 3.7. on December 24, 2017, the child and mother attended a Christmas party, and the mother consumed alcohol to excess; 3.8. at the party, the mother became angry when she lost her cell phone and threw bottles across the room; 3.9. one bottle hit a pan on the stove with boiling oil that splattered and seriously burned the child on her face and neck, causing bodily harm;

3.10. on December 26, 2017, the mother brought the child to the hospital to treat the burns; 3.11. the mother was subsequently arrested for assault with a weapon causing bodily harm; 3.12. the conditions imposed on the mother included respecting a curfew and not possessing or consuming alcohol; 3.13. following this incident, the mother’s two other children went to stay full-time with their father; 3.14. the mother appeared to recognize the seriousness of her behaviours and the potential impact on the child; 3.15. the mother has since collaborated with the intervention and has regularly participated in anger management sessions; 3.16. in June 2018, one of the mother’s other children (Dinah, age 12) returned to her care after becoming the victim of ill-treatment by her father; 3.17. the mother requires ongoing support and therapeutic services; 3.18. the situation requires ongoing monitoring (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] The hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on October 23, 2018. [ 6 ] The Director then recommended that the child be entrusted to her mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 7 ] The mother, assisted by Me Shapiro Knight, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the application.

However, she denied having any difficulty providing structure and routine for the child and also denied that she “regularly arrived late for school”. The mother nonetheless agreed to all the proposed measures, but only for an interim period of four months.

When the hearing was continued on February 14, 2019, she expressed her opposition to any ongoing social follow-up and asked that the file be closed. [ 8 ] The child’s father is not declared on the child’s birth certificate. [ 9 ] The child was represented by Me Sureau who did not make any admissions but acknowledged that the child’s situation is in danger and that the measures are in her best interest.

When the hearing was continued, she argued that ongoing social services remained necessary but for a shorter period than the additional nine months recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-6 as evidence: D-1: Copy of the child’s birth certificate; D-2: Court Report, prepared by Andrea Dumitrache, dated June 5, 2018; D-3: Addendum, prepared by Andrea Dumitrache, dated October 15, 2018; D-4: En liasse, Agreements on Voluntary Mesaures dated October 2013, November 2015 and August 2016; D-5: Police Report bearing incident no. [...] (filed under

Article 292 C.p.c.); D-6: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 2], dated February 4, 2019. [ 11 ] In

summary, the necessity of the Director of Youth Protection’s initial involvement with the family for the alleged reasons was admitted. [ 12 ] The only question in dispute is whether and for how long ongoing Director of Youth Protection services are warranted. [ 13 ] The mother essentially argues that services are no longer required and, in any event, that the Director of Youth Protection has done nothing to help her and that she does not expect that to change. [ 14 ] The evidence establishes that the social worker initially assigned to work with the family was no longer able to do so and that a temporary worker was assigned until a replacement could be found.

Thus the new worker was only assigned on February 4, 2019, ten days before the hearing. [ 15 ] The temporary worker’s involvement was admittedly very limited. [ 16 ] However, the question must always be analysed from the child’s perspective. [ 17 ] Although it is certainly regrettable that a permanent worker was not available for the family before February 4, the mother also played a role in limiting the Director of Youth Protection’s access to the family. [ 18 ] In addition, school authorities could not be reached in due time to monitor the child’s and family’s situation. [ 19 ] Finally, the mother has been proactive in attending an anger management program and has very recently begun individual therapy. [ 20 ] Although these steps are extremely positive, it remains to be seen whether the mother will successfully put into practice what she is learning, and also maintain her sobriety.

[ 21 ] Under the circumstances, given the limited evidence to show that the situation has been redressed from the child’s perspective, the Court finds that it would be premature to conclude that the child’s security or development are no longer in danger. [ 22 ] However, considering the positive steps taken by the mother, a shorter period than the additional nine months recommended by the Director of Youth Protection should be sufficient. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under

section 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of physical or verbal violence; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking not to consume any alcohol in the child’s presence; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to ensure that the child attend school regularly; [ 29 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that the child is adequately supervised; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s commitment to benefit from individual counselling as well as of her undertaking to continue with services for anger management; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to help the mother find low income housing more suitable to her needs, as well as the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to provide financial assistance to the family insofar as possible; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] THE WHOLE until June 21, 2019.

Signed on February 21, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Angela Nevard Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maïa Sureau Attorney for the child Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the mother TD/vl