2015 QCCQ 11199, 2015 QCCQ 11199

Protection de la jeunesse — 151921 2015 QCCQ 11199 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Chambre de la jeunesse » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] N° : 610-41-000641-142 610-41-000642-140 DATE : March 19, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], human relations agents, exercising their profession at the Centre jeunesse A , having a place of business at […] in City A , district A , […] Applicants -and- X, domiciled at […] in City B , district B , […] -and- Y, residing at […] in City A , district A , […] Children -and- A, domiciled and residing at […] in City B , district B , […] Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing at […] in City A , 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] On July 9, 2014, the Honorable Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q., rendered a decision in the situation of the children X and Y , both born on [...] , 2007, entrusting X to his mother and Y to her aunt, C . [ 2 ] On November 17, 2014, due to new allegations received by the Director of Youth Protection, the child X was entrusted to a foster family for a period of five days, before returning to his mother. On November 24, 2014, the child was once again entrusted to a foster family.

Then, on December 4 th , 2014, he was entrusted to a third party. Finally, on December 17, 2014, he was entrusted to a foster family who, to this day, have been taking care of the young boy. [ 3 ] Considering that neither parents currently have the parental abilities to care for their children on a daily basis, the Director of Youth Protection seizes the Court of a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , asking this Court to entrust the child X to a foster family for a period of 12 months and entrust the child Y to her aunt, Mrs. C , for a period of 12 months as well. [ 4 ] This day, both children are not in Court due to their young age, but represented by Me Warolin. The applicant, mother and father are present and represented. The Court allows the applicant to proceed with a joint motion for both the children. [ 5 ] The mother admits most of the allegations for the child Y . She agrees with the measures put forth by the applicant.

As for X , she admits most of the allegations, except all of the allegations concerning physical violence towards the child.

She also agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] As for the father, he admits most of the allegations concerning both children and is in agreement with the placement of the children in foster homes, but wishes the placement to be for a period of 6 months instead of twelve. [ 7 ] Both children, through the voice of their lawyer, admit the allegations of the motion and agree with the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved intermittently with this family, concerning both children, since January 2008.

In the past, it was reported that there was a serious risk of neglect because of substance abuse by the mother and father, instability from both parents and exposition to domestic violence. The children have been entrusted to family members on a few occasions. SITUATION OF THE CHILD X [ 9 ] Since the decision rendered by the Honorable Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q., on June 9, 2014, the situation of the child has

deteriorated. At the time, the mother was living with Mr. D . [ 10 ] On August 2 nd , 2014 in City A , a report was received by police officers in regards to an argument involving the mother and her boyfriend. The child was present at the time. This argument took place at their residence and the police had to intervene. Later the same night, the mother and her boyfriend had a second argument on the street, near the residence. The child had been left alone with one of his cousins who was not mature enough to take care of the child.

The child was later taken to an aunt. [ 11 ] On August 5, 2014, the child, his mother and her boyfriend moved to City C . During this short time in City C , the child demonstrated behavioral problems at home as well as in school. The behavior problems at school were described as "emotional breakdowns". The mother admitted that she was not always consistent in giving the child the medication that was prescribed in order to control his ADHD. [ 12 ] On a couple of occasion since August 2014, the mother considered placing her son with her grandfather, Mr.

E , for either financial considerations or because of the child's difficult behavior, but would later change her mind. [ 13 ] On or about November 13, 2014, in City C , because the child was refusing to go to bed, Mr. D got angry with him and grabbed him by the chest, pinched him and pulled him. This left a bruise on the child's chest. The child was crying very hard in his room.

The mother, in another room at the time, did not intervene. [ 14 ] The next day, on November 14, the Youth Protection services received a referral stating that the child was victim of physical abuse from his mother and his mother's spouse. [ 15 ] The child revealed to the social workers and in a video that his mother and Mr. D were physically abusive towards him when he was being bad; such as being hit, handcuffed, tied with a string or smacked on his bare bottom. [ 16 ] The mother, in her testimony, revealed that it is true that Mr. D tied up the child with a string, but that this incident happened only once.

Mr. D and herself have spanked the child on maybe five occurrences. The mother says that she did that because Mr. D influenced her. [ 17 ] Concerning the fact that the child would have been handcuffed, the mother explained that she was playing cops and robbers with her son. She put the handcuff on her son (dollar store handcuffs) and tied him up to his bed. She said that he was in jail and that if he wasn't nice, he would stay there. For her, it was a game.

It seems that this incident traumatized the child, as he spoke of this event to the social workers and on video. [ 18 ] The child misses his parents and sister and would like to see more of them. SITUATION OF THE CHILD Y [ 19 ] Y is doing extremely well since she began living with her aunt, Mrs. C .

She performs well in school and does not have tantrums anymore like she used to before the placement. [ 20 ] The child states that she does miss her mother and father as well as her brother, but says that she enjoys living with her aunt, as she likes it when they go out and do things with her aunt's family. [ 21 ] Since the mother moved to City C on November 26, 2014, she has seen her daughter only once. A planed visit on November 30, 2014 was the only occurrence. The mother has not been consistent in keeping in touch with her daughter, whether by visiting her or contacting her by phone. [ 22 ] Mrs.

C stated that she wants to keep the child for another year. She and her family are very invested in the young girl. Since she has been living in her home, Mrs. C noticed a big change in her behavior. The child finally has structure, routine, safety and a place where all her needs are being met. This could explain the positive changes. [ 23 ] At school, the child's teachers also noticed a considerable improvement in her attitude. ANALYSIS [ 24 ] The mother is no longer living with Mr. D and does not intent to communicate with him. [ 25 ] The mother has not seen her children since November.

She is currently going to school and works twenty hours a week. She does call her son once a week, but since it is difficult to talk with her daughter because of the fact that she is often out, doing activities with her aunt, she is not in contact with her as frequently. [ 26 ] As for the father, he has not requested to contact or see the children since summer.

The last scheduled contact for the child X had to be cancelled because there was a party going on at the father's home, and it would have been an inappropriate environment for the child. [ 27 ] The father is well known by police officers for having a chaotic lifestyle. He has gone through judicial procedures concerning accusations of failure to comply with his conditions, failure to comply with his probation orders, uttering threats, assault as well as possession of drugs.

The father was incarcerated at the beginning of 2013 and was released during spring of the same year. [ 28 ] There was a warrant issued for the father's arrest. He was arrested on November 17, 2014 at the courthouse in City D after a hearing regarding the children. The father was detained and had a Court hearing the next day. He was released under a 500.00$ bail with

an undertaking to appear before the Court on December 15, 2014. The proceedings in his files are not complete. [ 29 ] The father mentions that he is now taking action in order to stabilize his situation; He has been sober for a period of seven months. [ 30 ] It is known by the petitioner that the child X demonstrates serious behavioral problems in school. A team is working with him towards improving these issues. [ 31 ] The social services have been involved with these children since they were around seven weeks old.

Both children have been exposed to parties where drugs and alcohol were consumed, arguments between the parents and have been care for by different people. [ 32 ] The young girl seems to have stabilized in the care of Mrs. C . It is important to continue the placement with Mrs. C so that the improvements gained are not lost.

Meanwhile, the parents will have to be serious in the steps they intend to take in order for the child to be reintegrated with either one of them. [ 33 ] As for the young boy, he still displays behavior problems and it was demonstrated to the Court that the mother was not able to control the situation. The Court considers that the child cannot be returned to either one of his parents for the time being. The Court hopes that, within a year, the situation of the young boy as well as that of the parents will have changed in such a manner that it will be possible to entrust him with his mother or father.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS both requests; [ 35 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of Y , born on [...] , 2007, under

section 38

b) I) iii) and 38 b) 2) are still in danger; [ 36 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X , born on [...] , 2007, under

section 38

b) I) iii), 38 b) 2) and 38 (1) 2) are still in danger; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child Y to her aunt C , who will become a foster family on February 1 st , 2015 under the Youth Protection Law; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to a foster family; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the foster family for X be Mrs.

F ; [ 40 ] ORDERS that all the measures apply for a period of 12 months; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the Centre Jeunesse provide aid, counseling and assistance to the children, their parents and the foster families for a period of 12 months; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and their children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, modality and the presence of a third party until deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection, and that they be in the best interest of the children; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the contacts be as frequent as possible; [ 44 ] ORDERS that there be a calendar made for the contacts between the parents and the children; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the children not have any form of contact with Mr.

D for as long as deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents do not consume drugs or alcohol in the presence of the children and that they be sober at all times when they have access rights with the children; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the children not be in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the mother be assessed for her mental health issues; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the father be assessed for his alleged drug and alcohol problems and follow any recommendations following the evaluation; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection of any changes of address and phone number within a delay of 48 hours; [ 51 ] ORDERS that all professionals involved be permitted to exchange information regarding the children and the parents situation with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and follow his recommendations; [ 53 ] ORDERS that both children receive the medical attention required by their situation; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign any documents regarding the medical situation of the

children if the parents cannot be reached; [ 55 ] ORDERS the police force to collaborate to the execution of the present order; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the situation of the children be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the application of the present measures. __________________________________ Marc E. Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Counsel for the applicant M e Peggy Warolin Counsel for the children M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Counsel for the mother M e Sébastien Lebel Counsel for the father Date of hearing: January 15, 2015