2017 QCCQ 18768, 2017 QCCQ 18768

Protection de la jeunesse — 179217 2017 QCCQ 18768 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000450-172 DATE: December 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...] 2014 Child -and- A -and B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 13, 2017, social workers are requested to present themselves to a residence in order to check the hygiene of the premises and that of a three year-old living there. [ 2 ] What they discover on that day leads them to apply immediate protective measures concerning three children living under that roof. [ 3 ] X is entrusted to his parents, while Y and Z are entrusted to their mother, who is X's paternal grandmother.

They are to reside somewhere else, on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the children's security or development are in danger because they would suffer neglect, as their basic physical needs would not be met. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals the following situation. [ 6 ] The DYP has known the children's family for a few years.

Protective measures are applied in the past, concerning Y and Z, for neglect with respect to hygiene and lodging. [ 7 ] In January of 2017, the Court grants an application for protection concerning Z, mostly because he is not going to school. He attends school ever since. [ 8 ] The worker in charge of the follow-up indicates that Z's parents are reluctant to services. However, they send their son to school and, according to what she hears from school authorities, he is clean, wears adequate clothes and brings appropriate lunches. Z is ten year-old, but he works at a first grade level in some subjects.

According to the worker, the child goes to school because it is ordered in a judgment. [ 9 ] On July 6, 2017, that worker goes to the family's house for a meeting. She only goes to the entrance and the kitchen of the residence. She notices that some building or maintenance work still needs to be done both outside and inside. She does not look in the refrigerator, neither does she check electricity. However, she says the house, at the time, is cleaner than what she hears at the hearing.

[ 10 ] She is not worried for Z on that day. However, she states she is there for the schooling issues solely. [ 11 ] The two social workers who come to the premises on July 13, are worried because of what they discover. [ 12 ] At first, they are denied the authorization to go inside the residence, even after explaining the reason of their presence. Nevertheless, they see, around the house, several cars and numerous objects on the ground and they fear the environment is not safe for young children. [ 13 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] says she has to watch her steps to make sure she does not walk on something.

Moreover, there are two pigs, in a pen, close to the house. [ 14 ] Z and Y's mother forbids the social workers to come into the house. Her son, X’s father, is also present and displays intimidating and aggressive behaviour. The social workers come back with the police, later on the same day. They describe what they see inside the house. Pictures are also filed as exhibits. The Court also hears the testimony of the police officer who is present. [ 15 ] The residence is not linked to electricity’s public network. The family owns a generator that is not operating while the social workers are there.

There is neither power nor running water. There is some food, in a cooler, with melted ice. The toilet has been used and not flushed. There is dust and dirt all over the house and there is a lot of stuff lying about on floors and furniture. The pictures demonstrate that the general state of the property does not meet usual standards of appearance and cleanliness. [ 16 ] In X's bedroom, there is no bed but a small baby park, while the child is almost three at the time. The mother tells the social worker they will get a bed soon. [ 17 ] On that hot summer day, it smells bad, both outside and inside the house.

There are several animals on the land. There is also garbage, close to the house. [ 18 ] The police officer calls the fire department to have someone come and check if there is a fire hazard. [ 19 ] Mr. Thibault, from the fire department, testifies about his observations. The generator presents risks. So do the two woodstoves and their chimneys. That is the situation on July 13, date of his visit. He goes back to the residence on September 29. Steps were undertaken to correct some problems. However, the heating system still does not meet safety standards.

Moreover, the installation was not verified by an electrician. According to Mr. Thibault, fire hazards are still present at the time. [ 20 ] Because they fear that the children's safety may be at stake, the workers request that they leave the place and reside elsewhere, at least on a temporary basis. They apply immediate protective measures to make sure the three children do not stay there. Both families move and some work is done afterwards, to improve the state of the property. [ 21 ] The children’s parents proclaim their right to an unconventional way of life. They advocate self-sustenance.

They use a generator and solar panels to avoid buying their electricity from Hydro-Quebec. They have animals and grow their own food, as much as possible. [ 22 ] Z and Y's mother testifies about their situation. She does not see why the DYP would be involved in their life for neglect. Six workers came to their home before and none asked them to leave. [ 23 ] The mother says they use the generator three times a day.

She explains that Y, who suffers from significant developmental delays, always forgets to flush the toilet. [ 24 ] She questions the DYP's intervention, saying they were coming only for X and did not ask to see the children. [ 25 ] X's father also testifies. He describes the land and shows pictures. The children are allowed to play in a designated part, marked out with ropes. The pig pen is next to the barn, not just by the house. [ 26 ] He has been working on the house for the last year and made some changes very recently. He says that issues with the stoves and chimneys are solved.

He made all changes required by the fire department. On October 5, an electrician confirms that the generator wiring is standard. [ 27 ] Counsels present their submissions to the Court. The DYP pleads that the major problem is not the house, but the fact that the parents do not see any problem. Moreover, the only reason for them to make some changes is the intervention of the DYP. [ 28 ] Parents' counsel submits that the social workers who come to the house on July 13, as well as the police officer, clearly exaggerate the situation.

At the end of the day, the sole true concern would be the fire hazards, which is now solved. [ 29 ] There are issues in that family. The Court has to determine if those issues place the children in need of protection. Do the parents fail to meet the children's basic physical needs with respect to lodging? [ 30 ] The situation on July 13 is troubling. However, it is relevant to note that we hear and see a lot about the state of the property but very little about the children. [ 31 ] Nevertheless, the testimonies and documentary evidence, notably pictures taken on that day, convince the Court of the

appalling state of the house where those three children live. The Court respects the parents’ values and their desire to adopt a way of life that tends to be self-sufficient. The Court does not blame them for that. However, the Court seriously worries about the children’s security. [ 32 ] What we can see on the pictures and what is described by three credible witnesses is not only an unconventional way of life. In fact, it is a house which lacks minimal conveniences of modern life, as well as basic cleanliness. Even more worrying is the fire hazard.

We are talking here about basic safety measures that are not in place. [ 33 ] The previous interventions of the DYP in regards with part of that family also shed additional light on the situation. In the past, the DYP receive reports for the same reasons. Protective measures are ordered concerning Y and Z with respect to physical neglect in 2012. Obviously, what social workers witness in July 2017 is not an isolated situation. It is rather a recurrent problem. Of course, the parents plead that the fire hazards would not be present anymore.

However, they put changes in place where they are pressured to do so. [ 34 ] The parents love their children. Unfortunately, the preponderant evidence demonstrates that they fail to meet their basic physical needs, with regards to lodging. Therefore, the application is well founded. [ 35 ] The measures recommended by the DYP appear to be in the children’s best interest. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger according to

section 38b)1 0 i of the youth protection act ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his parents, until October 31, 2018; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the director of youth protection to inform her of their situation; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his parents until October 31, 2018; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the parents

Dates of hearing : October 2 & 6, 2017