2012 QCCQ 19830, 2012 QCCQ 19830

Protection de la jeunesse — 128884 2012 QCCQ 19830 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division Nos. 635-41-000469-129 635-41-000481-124 DATE: November 20, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2011 Y, born on […], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in City A, District A, province of Québec Applicant v.

A , residing and domiciled in City B, District A, province of Québec Mother and B , residing and domiciled in City B District A, province of Québec Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 38 and 75, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection has made an application for a motion of protection under sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act , concerning the children X, born on […], 2011, and Y, born on […], 2012. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, it was agreed to proceed with a common hearing.

Both children were represented by Mtre. Marie-Claude De Gagné. The parents were present at the hearing and represented by Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault. II - THE FACTS [ 3 ] On March 9, 2012, the police intervened relative to an incident of conjugal violence. [ 4 ] The mother made a statement to the police. She said that the father, B, had slapped her on the side of her head and grabbed her by the hair.

She also mentioned that the father had picked up her son X and shaken him. [ 5 ] According to the police occurrence report, pictures were taken that showed bruises on the mother's face. [ 6 ] During the police intervention, the father displayed frustration and aggressive behaviour toward the mother. [ 7 ] The father was arrested and detained until March 12, 2012. He was released on conditions, including that he not be in contact with the mother and the child. [ 8 ] On March 23, 2012, the mother made another statement, in which she said that she wanted to drop the charge against the father.

She said it was her fault and denied that Mr. B had assaulted her. [ 9 ] On March 31, 2012, the father was arrested for breach of conditions. He was at the mother's residence, even though it was prohibited in his release conditions. [ 10 ] On April 15, 2012, the police intervened at the mother's house. The father was present despite the prohibition and he and the mother were arguing in the child's presence. [ 11 ] The parents were regularly together in the child's presence, despite the release conditions and the intervention of youth protection services.

[ 12 ] On July 18, 2012, the Honourable Lise Gagnon entrusted the child X to the maternal grandparents. She ordered that the child not be allowed to leave the house with the mother unless the mother was accompanied by one of her parents. She also prohibited contact with the father, unless it was supervised by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] On […], 2012, the mother gave birth to the child Y at the City B nursing station. [ 14 ] The mother disclosed that she used drugs during her pregnancy.

She refused to go to City A to give birth, even though it was recommended by medical services, considering the high risk delivery. Immediately after the delivery, the mother and the newborn baby were transferred to the City A hospital.

The mother had to be transferred during the night to the A Hospital because of medical complications. [ 15 ] Shortly after the delivery, the mother mentioned that she had thought about adoption but had not found an adoptive family in City C for a traditional adoption. [ 16 ] On October 6, 2012, the mother returned to City A and refused to see the child, who was still in hospital. [ 17 ] On October 8, 2012, the child was placed with a foster family in City A. [ 18 ] Both parents confirmed to the petitioner their intention to give the baby up for adoption. [ 19 ] On November 2, 2012, the parents signed the general consent to adoption form.

III – ANALYSIS [ 20 ] The parents, who were represented by a lawyer, did not contest the motion. In their admissions at the hearing, they acknowledged that they have many problems. However, they denied having conjugal violence issues. [ 21 ] The evidence shows that an incident of domestic violence occurred on March 9, 2012. The police occurrence report confirmed that the mother had a bruise under her left eye when they intervened in the morning. She gave a statement to the police, explaining that Mr. B had slapped her on the side of her head.

She also mentioned that he had picked up the baby and shaken him. [ 22 ] The next day, the mother made another statement, which confirmed the previous one. She gave more details concerning the assault on her and the aggressive behaviour toward her son. [ 23 ] On March 23, 2012, the mother signed another statement. She said that she punched herself and threw things at the wall.

She also said that she wanted the father to come back home because she could not take care of the baby alone. [ 24 ] Obviously, the new statement is hard to believe, particularly the mother's contention that she got the bruises on her face when she punched herself. [ 25 ] Furthermore, the Court takes into consideration the behaviour of Mr. B in the presence of the police on March 9, 2012. He was aggressive toward Ms. A. A few minutes later, the police officer twice observed him hanging around Ms.

A's mother's house. [ 26 ] Those elements are consistent with a context of domestic violence. [ 27 ] The police intervened on April 15, 2012, due to an argument between the parents in the presence of the child X. When the police arrived, they heard the parents yelling in Inuktitut. The baby was present in the bedroom and was crying. At that time, one of the father's release conditions was that he not be in the presence of the mother and his son. [ 28 ] The Court is convinced that the behaviour of the parents could cause harm to the child X, because of exposure to conjugal violence, pursuant to

section 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 29 ] Concerning the situation of the child Y, the child's security and development are considered in danger under sections 38 (

a) and (c) .

[ 30 ] Clearly, the parents have failed to provide for the child's care and maintenance. They refused to see the child at the hospital. They signed a consent to adoption on November 2, 2012. [ 31 ] However, the parents revoked the consent and mentioned at the hearing that they wanted contact with the child. Their previous behaviour toward her has to be considered to constitute abandonment and emotional rejection. VI – APPLICABLE MEASURES For the child X [ 32 ] The applicant recommends that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandparents for a period of six (6) months.

The child has been living in that environment since July 18, 2012. According to the evidence, an incident of conjugal violence occurred on August 29, 2012 between the grandparents. The child was not present at the time. [ 33 ] After the incident, the worker worked intensively with the maternal grandmother to enable her to resume her responsibilities toward the child. [ 34 ] The child is attached to his grandparents. He did not witness the incidents of violence and has received adequate care and affection. The incident of last August is the only police intervention involving the household in the past year.

The grandparents received close follow-up with the youth protection worker and the situation has greatly improved. The grandparents cooperate well with the youth protection worker. [ 35 ] Considering the improvement in the situation and the level of involvement of the grandparents with the Director of Youth Protection, the Court accepts the recommendations to entrust the child to the maternal grandparents. For the child Y [ 36 ] The child has been living with a foster family since birth. The parents had cut their child out of their lives. They changed their mind at the hearing.

The placement with a foster family for six (6) months will be a period in which to assess the intention of the parents and the seriousness of their involvement in the baby's life. [ 37 ] During the period of placement, the parents will have to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection.

The first step will be to recognize their conjugal violence issues in order to improve the situation for the well-being of both children. [ 38 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are in danger; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child X, born on […] 2011, be entrusted to the maternal grandparents, C and D for a period of six (6) months; [ 42 ] ORDERS the placement of the child Y, born on […], 2012, with a foster family for a period of six (6) months; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the father seek help for his anger management, drug consumption and conjugal violence issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the mother seek help for conjugal violence issues; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment regarding the security and development of the children; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their parents, as well as to the maternal grandparents, for a period of six (6) months; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the frequency and duration of contact between the children and their parents, as well as the level of supervision of contact, including the presence of a third person, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that contact between the child X and his siblings be encouraged; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the child X not be left with the mother unless one of her parents is present, or as authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, subject to the conditions determined by the Director; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. Mtre. Marie-Claude De Gagné For the child Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault (as a friend of the court) For the mother Mtre.

Myriame Gaudreault For the father Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault For the applicant Date of hearing: City A, November 20, 2012