2016 QCCQ 9505, 2016 QCCQ 9505

Protection de la jeunesse — 164023 2016 QCCQ 9505 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000702-159 DATE: January 29, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...], Town A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, residing at [...] at Town B, district B, [...] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled at [center A] Mother -and- M.

B, domiciled and residing at [...] at Town C, district A, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] After the filing of a motion asking the Court to declare the security and development of X, born on [...], 2004 in danger, the parties submitted to this Court a draft agreement on measures to put an end to the situation that compromises the security and the development of the child. [ 2 ] The child and the mother were present and both represented by their lawyer.

The father was also present but not represented. [ 3 ] The draft agreement states that the consent of the parties was given in a free and enlightened manner. The parties acknowledge the following facts which endanger the security and the development of X according to sections 38 (b) (2) and 38 (e)

(1) YPA. More specifically

section 38 (e)

(1) YPA refers to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the father: 2.1. In the past, the child and his parents received services from the director of Youth Protection; 2.2. As it appears from those agreements the child had behavioural disturbances and conflicts occurred between the parents; 2.3. On October 16, 2015, the director received a new report regarding the child after the police had to intervene due to a serious argument between his parents; 2.4. Following the intervention of the police, on October 16, the father was arrested because it was alleged that he committed assault on the mother; 2.5.

The father was later released under conditions; 2.6. Following that event, the mother and the child have been residing in at the shelter “[center A]” in Town A; 2.7. On October 23, the father was arrested once again after it was alleged that he committed assault on the child; 2.8. More precisely, the child asserts that on or about October 3, 2015, the father slapped his bottom several times; 2.9.

The father was released the same day, October 23, after he signed an “undertaking given to a peace officer” with the condition, among others, to abstain communicating with the child, that condition does not exist anymore;

2.10. On November 24, 2015, during a medical consultation with a paediatrician, the child became violent and the charges were drop; 2.11. On November 30, the child had a serious fit of temper in school; 2.12. After he refused to do his work, the child threw different objects in the classroom and threw a chair on an educator; 2.13. The school staff had to call the police to calm the child; 2.14. The same day, November 30, the director took immediate protective measures and entrusted the child to a rehabilitation center; 2.15.

The immediate protection measures were prolonged by the court for five workable days on December 2. [ 4 ] They also agree on several measures in order to put an end to the situation which endangers the child's security and development: 3.1. That the child be entrusted in a readaptation center for a five months period including a period of reintegration in the most appropriate family setting; 3.2. That the contacts between the child and his parents be supervised by the DYP as for frequency and modalities; 3.3.

That the parents actively collaborate to different measures to put an end to the compromising situation; 3.4. That the mother continues her follow ups with services aimed for spousal abuse; 3.5. That the father be sober at all time in the presence of his child; 3.6. That the parents make sure the child is not exposed to any form of violence (verbal, physical or other); 3.7. That the father engaged himself in services that will address the schooling methods with a professional; 3.8.

That the parents report themselves to the DYP on regular intervals to inform him of the measures they take to put an end to the compromising situation; 3.9. That the parents accept the exchange of information regarding the attendance and the evolution of the situation with the professionals implicated in the child and the parent’s situations; 3.10. That DYP provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s parents for a period of 12 months; 3.11.

The child will be enrolled in an English speaking school when his behaviour will permit that he attends school out of the readaptation center if possible; [ 5 ] Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the measures are likely to put an end to the situation and respect the rights and the interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] ENDORSES the draft agreement; [ 7 ] DECLARES the security and development of the child endangered following sections 38 (b) (2) and 38 (e)

(1) YPA; [ 8 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement signed by the parties on January 20, 2016. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Daoust Boulianne Parayre Avocats inc. Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: January 20, 2016