2016 QCCQ 8252, 2016 QCCQ 8252

Protection de la jeunesse — 163570 2016 QCCQ 8252 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 30383-152 / 525-41-030385-157 / 525-41-030384-150 Date: March 18, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2010 In the case of: Y Born on [...], 2011 In the case of: Z Born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) JD2620 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of March 18, 2016, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , Y and Z , who are six, four and three years old, based on the neglect and serious risk of neglect to which they are exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motions dated October 27, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, X was subject to Youth Court orders from 2012 to 2014, as it appears in file No. 525-41 025437-112 due to the serious conflicts between the parents, the mothers substance abuse problems and the father’s gambling problems; 3.2. as relevant background information, the parents separated since October 2014, the father has custody of the child and the siblings through Superior Court, and the mother has access rights; 3.3. the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs in failing to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support and there is a serious risk that the parents will not meet the child’s basic needs with respect to food, clothing, hygiene or lodging, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) on June 22, 2015, the father reported to Mrs. Virna Valeriani social worker from CLSC Montreal-North, that he had the child and the siblings babysat for two (2) full weeks (day and overnights) as he was tired;

b) the father reported to Mrs. Valeriani that the mother has an alcohol abuse problem and that she is dating another man;

c) consequently, the father reported that he filed a petition at Superior Court to receive full custody of the child and the siblings on an interim basis;

d) however, the father reported that he was overwhelmed with the care of the child and the siblings;

e) the father reported that on one (1) occasion during the summer of 2015, he fell asleep with Z and that X and Y were found in the park alone;

f) on July 20, 2015, the father contacted Mrs. Valeriani, reporting that he was tired, that he wanted the child and the siblings to be placed, but that he did not want the Director of Youth Protection to be aware;

g) on July 20, 2015, the father reported that he gambled four hundred and fifty dollars ($450) and consequently, that he had no money to buy food for the children;

h) even though the father has been forthcoming with Mrs.

Valeriani, he and the mother have not been transparent at all with the Director of Youth Protection about their issues and also concerning their relationship status (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing and given more recent positive developments, the Director recommends that the children remain entrusted to the care of their parents with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Verreault-Nantel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and expressed her consent to all the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Shapiro Knight, also admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Saad, on behalf of the children, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Birth Certificate of the children; D-2: Judgments rendered by Honorable Judge Ruth Veillet, dated April 13, 2012 and June 17, 2013, en liasse; D-3: Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother, written by Peter Kelly, dated September 24, 2012; D-4: Parental Capacity Assessment of the father, written by Peter Kelly, dated September 21, 2012; D-5: Evaluation Psychosociale covering period of June 22 to July 24, 2015, written by Virna Valeriani; D-6: [Services Analysis A], dated September 11, 2014; D-7: Court Report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated January 27, 2016. [ 9 ] In

summary, the parents admit that their children’s security or development are considered to be endangered for the alleged reasons and agree to cooperate fully to redress the situation, including by accepting the services of an educator to ensure that their children’s needs are adequately met. [ 10 ] The children’s functioning does not appear to raise any concerns: X, Y and Z are all healthy children who are meeting their developmental milestones. X attends [School A] and she is in Kindergarten. X is an outgoing, talkative and active girl. Ms. A has reported that X can also be sensitive.

X also loves listening to music. X appears happy when she is with either parent. Y attends [School A] and she is in pre-kindergarten. At times, she does not listen to her teacher but overall, her behaviour is good. Y is also an outgoing and active child. She can also have temper tantrums at times when she does not get her way. Z attends daycare on a full- time basis. He is an active boy with no behavioural problems. [2] [ 11 ] Moreover, the family’s situation has improved significantly since the date of the motion.

The parents have demonstrated their commitment to the children’s well being: Although, the parents have not been together as a couple for some time, they have shown that they can co-parent effectively when needed and their children’s best interest is a priority. […] The parents are committed to taking care of their children and do not want to have them outside of their care. […] Since working with the family, the family situation has stabilized in that Mr. B has always provided for the children’s basic needs and is caring for them appropriately. There have been no concerns that Mr.

B is gambling. [3] [ 12 ] However, given the family’s history and the children’s vulnerability, ongoing support remains necessary. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the

motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the children's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children, X , Y and Z , are compromised under sections 38 (b) (1) (iii) and 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to their parents; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to any adult conflict; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children’s basic needs are met; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are supervised at all times; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent to work with the educator; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for [center A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X , Y and Z , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the children Me Mélodie Verreault-Nantel Attorney for the mother Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the father TD/vl