2021 QCCQ 10036, 2021 QCCQ 10036

Protection de la jeunesse — 214674 2021 QCCQ 10036 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002477-203 DATE: February 25, 2021 (written judgment rendered on May 10, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (2) [1] of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child remain with the parents until August 31, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Geneviève Lucas. She does not recognize that the security and development of her child are endangered, but if the Court declares that the situation is endangered, she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are endangered only under

section 38 (

c) and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits to the Court that his situation should be declared endangered and that the recommended measures are in his best interest. [ 6 ] X has a brother, Y (3 years old). The Court is also seized with his situation. Facts [ 7 ] The family is known from the DYP as services were offered from February to August 2018.

The services were offered in regards with neglect in terms of educational needs (poor supervision) and psychological ill-treatment due to exposure to conjugal violence. [ 8 ] In March 2020, the DYP received a new report regarding conjugal violence and alcohol consumption issues in the presence of the children. During one of those events, the father assaulted the mother while the baby, X was in her arms. The baby had to be checked by the nurse who confirmed that he had no injury. [ 9 ] The DYP had a lot of difficulty to meet with the parents to talk about the reports.

The mother was particularly reluctant to communicate with the DYP services. She only said that the parents stopped drinking since mid-May 2020, and they used to go on the land to practise traditional activities to cope with their addiction. They refuse to receive professional help. [ 10 ] Finally, during one meeting, the mother accepted to open up and explains that she does not want to have the DYP involved in her life because of her history with DYP when she was young. She became very emotional speaking about that.

[ 11 ] Since the report was received, it had been very difficult for the DYP to communicate with the parents as they are frequently absent from their house. [ 12 ] The consultation of the police occurrence report shows that the conjugal violence is bidirectional as the parents could be once the victim of and once accused of assault. [ 13 ] The DYP notes that the parents have very good parental capacities while sober. The children are very well taken care and easily go to see their parents when they need. The parents answer their children’s needs quickly and in a loving manner.

Unfortunately, when they drink, they are intoxicated to the point that they do not remember the events and doing so, they are not able to answer their children’s needs nor to ensure a proper supervision. [ 14 ] The parents do not benefit from a large safety net as their family members, and friends also have alcohol consumption issues. [ 15 ] The Court was supposed to hear the application on October 5, but one of the children was in Town A because he suffered from meningitis. The mother was with him.

The hearing was postponed to November 23, 2020, and once again to February 2021, due to a lack of time to proceed. [ 16 ] Since the report received in March 2020, the DYP heard nothing wrong from this family, but for the DYP worker, the situation remains worrisome considering the children are very young, the parents are difficult to be reached and because they took no steps to address their issues.

The DYP worker recognized that since the beginning of this situation there were many different DYP workers which could prevent the parents from being collaborative. [ 17 ] The DYP worker was able to enter into the house at one occasion and the house was clean and safe. The children attend day care and nothing was reported from the educators. [ 18 ] At the hearing, the father confirms his consent to work on his issues through the Social Services. Analysis [ 19 ] The evidence shows that the situation of the child is endangered due to the psychological ill-treatment he is the victim of.

The parents recognized their alcohol consumption issues and the facts that they could become violent in the presence of their children. The children are obviously affected by this situation, and there are predictable impacts on their development. [ 20 ] The DYP submits that the situation is also endangered due to neglect in terms of supervision. Under this ground, the Court has no evidence of such situation.

But due to the parents’ consumption issues, the Court considers that the children are at risk to be victims of neglect by their parents. [ 21 ] The DYP also alleged that the children are at risk of physical abuse due to the conjugal violence. The DYP based this position on the event of February 2020, but no evidence was provided regarding that event. The DYP worker who testified at the Court was not present at that moment. If a police intervention was done at that time, the police officer did not testify. The father has no memories of this event and did not testify. The mother denied the event.

The only certitude is the fact that the child was brought at the nursing that night. For this reason, the Court cannot declare the situation endangered under this ground. [ 22 ] The DYP intervention is needed in this family. The parents recognized their issues. Once at the court, they confirm being open to collaborate with the DYP and now they have to respect their commitment. [ 23 ] The lack of collaboration from the parents was largely discussed during this hearing. Considering the DYP’s concerns, the Court cannot explain why a judicial measures were not requested before.

If the DYP would have asked for a provisional measure, he would have access to more information (medical file, KRPF, etc.). When there is no collaboration from the parents, it is important to seize the Court to protect the children adequately and in a timely manner.

A judicial measure would have permitted to protect the children and would also have permitted the Court to be provided with a more precise and detailed evidence. [ 24 ] Considering the recognizance from the parents, the Court will order them to collaborate with the DYP with a minimal frequency of meeting with the DYP worker. [ 25 ] Considering this file started with a report received one year ago, and since that time, no measures were applied, it is necessary to render a shorter decision to be sure that the parents take the right steps for the best interest of their children.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2019, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (2) and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his parents; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child attend day care on a daily basis; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents report at least every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court, fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet with him upon request;

[ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 34 ] Considering his consent, ORDERS that the father seek help through Social Services concerning his alcohol, anger management and personal issues; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointments with the professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided and to obtain information from KRPF; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Roxane Bacon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 25, 2021