2016 QCCQ 17926, 2016 QCCQ 17926

Protection de la jeunesse — 168841 2016 QCCQ 17926 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030573-158; 525-41-030572-150 DATE : June 9, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2011 Y , born on [...], 2015 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on June 9 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of the situation of the children (now aged 5 years old and 9 months old), alleging that their security and development are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment and risk of neglect. In the situation of the oldest child, the Director is also alleging that the security and development are compromised due to neglect.

In both cases, the Director is asking that the children be entrusted to the parents and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] Although the name of the father does not appear on the birth certificate of the oldest child, steps have been taken by the parents in order to establish paternity for the child. A request is made on behalf of Mr. B, father of the youngest child, to be granted the status of party for "his son". All parties agree with the request. [ 4 ] The Court considers it expedient to grant Mr.

B the status of party to the hearing, in the best interest of X. The Tribunal will refer to Mr. B as the father of both children in the written judgement but will render more specific measures taking into account that Mr. B has not yet the title of father even though he is granted the status of party. [ 5 ] Both parents admit essentially all the facts alleged in support of the motions. Both recognize the reasons for the intervention of the

Director and they agree with the recommendations presented to Court. [ 6 ] After lengthy discussions with the parents and their attorneys, counsel for the children agrees with the recommendations made by the Director. CONTEXT [ 7 ] From December 2014 until the end of August 2015, the mother has been residing with her son at Les Maisons Transitionnelles . She was there receiving different services even though it was said that the mother was non-compliant with the program's requirement. [ 8 ] The mother admits that, at times, her son may not have been appropriately supervised.

She explains that her health condition made it difficult for her to always supervise her son and that arrangements she has made for others to provide supervision may not have been the best. [ 9 ] The parents acknowledge that their relationship has at times been conflictual. They deny physical altercation but admit that they had verbal conflicts and that these conflicts have had an impact on the children. [ 10 ] The parents now seem to understand the purpose for the intervention of the Director.

They now offer their collaboration and accept to participate in the programs suggested. [ 11 ] The Tribunal invites the parents to take advantage of the services offered by the Director. The goal is to help them assume fully their responsibilities, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the children. [ 12 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the children are compromised for the reasons alleged by the Director. Under the circumstances, the recommendations made meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment, negligence and risk of negligence; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of Y are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment and risk of negligence; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 15 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to the care of her parents; [ 16 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to the care of his mother and Mr.

B; [ 17 ] ORDERS both adults to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS to both adults to engage in programs to address their respective needs and histories of conjugal violence, including a general anger management component for Mr.

B; [ 19 ] ORDERS that X attend day camp during the summer and school as soon as school starts; [ 20 ] ORDERS that Y attend daycare; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of nine (9) months; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Marie-José Lavigueur Attorney for the children Me Louise Denault Attorney for the mother Me Judith Shapiro Knight Attorney for the father Date of hearing : June 9 th , 2016