2022 QCCQ 14534, 2022 QCCQ 14534

Protection de la jeunesse — 229015 2022 QCCQ 14534 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002153-184 DATE: June 8, 2022 (written judgment rendered on June 13, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 prolong a decision rendered on November 10, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and ordered that the child be entrusted until August 31, 2021, to a foster family and recommended the foster family of her aunt C. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation has not changed and suggests that the child be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms.

D until the age of majority. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. The mother admits that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Michael Pereira. The father admits that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] X who is 8 ¾ years old is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. X confirms that she would like to live with Ms. D until she turns 18 years old.

H ISTORY OF THE SITUATION [ 6 ] On February 23, 2018 , the situation of the X and her sister was submitted to the Court. It was alleged that Y was sexually abused by her father in the presence of X. In November 2017, while the mother was intoxicated, she fights with her cousin. She had to be hospitalized and following that she tries to commit suicide in front of her daughters. In July 2017, the father was arrested for the sexual assaults on 2 other children. The evidence showed that X and Y have inappropriate sexual behaviours. They are scared about their father.

The mother offered a good collaboration, and was able to answer the children’s needs. The Court declared that the security and development of X were endangered [1] , and the child was entrusted to her mother. The Court ordered that the contacts between the child and the father could occur only if the father benefit from a minimum of 3 meetings with the DYP worker, the whole until the end of February 2019. [ 7 ] On November 2, 2018 , the child was entrusted to a foster family under

section 47 of the YPA, and on November 8, 2018, the child was maintained in a foster family on provisional measures. [ 8 ] On November 23, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. The mother started a conjugal relationship with Mr. E. X was scared of him since she witnesses an event of conjugal violence between her mother and her new boyfriend. The mother get pregnant, but continued to consume alcohol. The father did not participate to the meeting with the DYP, but exercised access rights at his parents’ place as X was frequently there. The grandparents committed to supervise the father until a criminal decision forbid the father to be in

presence of the children. Then, he moved to Town A. The mother gave birth. Shortly after the newborn was shaken by his father, Mr. E and physically injured. A few months later, the mother was the victim of conjugal violence and she had to be medevaced due to gravity of her injuries. The mother collaborates well with the DYP and always agrees to receive help. The Court maintained the declaration of endangerment and declared that the security and development of the child were also endangered under paragraphs (

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

section 38 of YPA and entrusted the child to a foster family with a reintegration at the mother’s place. The Court ordered a prohibition of contact between the child and Mr. E, that the mother participate to a psychological evaluation, that the child receive a follow-up for children being sexually abused, the whole until November 30, 2019. [ 9 ] On November 28, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. X was 6 years old, and she was entrusted to her paternal grandparents. The mother was still in relation with Mr. E. The father took no step to have contacts with his daughter.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, strongly recommended that the child be entrusted to an Inuit foster family and ordered a reintegration under the mother’s care if the situation allows it. The Court authorizes that contacts be maintained with the paternal grandparents and ordered that the child received a follow-up for young children sexually abused, the whole until November 30, 2020. [ 10 ] On December 15, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. X was 7 years old. The mother was still living with her boyfriend.

She admitted not being able to choose between her boyfriend and her children and also that she has nowhere else to stay. Their relation continued to be punctuated by alcohol consumption and conjugal violence. The mother was still collaborating well. The father had no contacts with the DYP worker, and he was still living at his parent’s place. Since the last decision, the child went through 5 different foster families. The child had contacts with her father despite the prohibition. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and recommended that she be entrusted to her aunt, Ms. C.

The Court maintained the prohibition of contact between the child and M. E and the conditions for the father to have contact with his daughter. The Court also recommended that the mother benefit from the services recommended by Dr. Beltempo, the whole until August 31, 2021. Facts [ 11 ] After the last Court decision, the child was entrusted to her paternal aunt, Ms. C, the school principal. [ 12 ] X is developing very well. She is doing well at home as well as at school, and she has many friends. [ 13 ] The mother’s situation remained the same. She is still in relation with Mr.

E and the relation continued to be punctuated by conjugal violent events. The mother’s boyfriend is currently detained because he did not show up at the court for the accusation of conjugal violence. The mother expresses that it is difficult for her to live without her boyfriend. She is conscious of her issues and that she is in a toxic relation. Unfortunately, she is unable to end this relation. [ 14 ] The recommendations from Dr. Beltempo were explained to the mother.

To obtain better results, she should start the follow-up with the psychologist or the counsellor before participating to the Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing therapy. Even if the mother was open to participate when it had been explained by Dr. Beltempo in 2019, the mother took no steps to benefit from those services. [ 15 ] The mother also continued to displayed alcohol consumption issues. She is drinking more during her days off. Despite all her difficulties, she is still very collaborative with the DYP services. [ 16 ] While being entrusted to Ms.

C, the child did not benefit from regular contacts with her mother. She generally sees her in the village when she plays outside with her friends. The mother never replied to the offer to have a calendar of visits prepared by the DYP. [ 17 ] The father took no steps to meet with the DYP worker nor to have contacts with his daughter. [ 18 ] Around October 2021, X spoke about her desire to be entrusted back to Ms. D. X disclosed that C would consume alcohol sometimes and she does like that. [ 19 ] The mother agreed with such change, and Ms. D also agreed to have X back under her care.

The transfer was done on November 15, 2021. [ 20 ] Since X is fostered on the maternal side, she has more frequent contacts with her mother. Ms. D confirms that the mother is welcome at her place at any time. [ 21 ] The hearing on the application had been postponed a few times, among others, because X had asked to be moved.

The DYP was initially looking for a placement under foster family for a few months, but considering the time passed and the positive evolvement of the child in her current foster family, the DYP changed the recommendations for a majority placement. [ 22 ] The parents agree with such placement. [ 23 ] It is admitted that the father would have had some contacts with his daughter while she was entrusted to Ms. C. Since the transfer, he did not have.

The DYP asked that the conditions for him to have access to his daughter be maintained meaning that he participate to 3 meetings with the DYP before. [ 24 ] The father explains that he cannot attend such meetings because of his work schedule. He works 12 hours a day from Monday to Friday and has no days off. The DYP worker agrees to communicate with the father’s employer to request flexibility on this aspect. Analysis [ 25 ] The situation of the child remains obviously endangered due to the mother’s way of life and the father’s priors. They took no steps to improve their situation.

The parents recognize not being able to provide a safe environment for their child.

[ 26 ] Considering the mistake present in the revision report, it is important to remind that the follow-up should be done under the grounds of endangerment declared by the Court which are: 38 (b) (2) serious risk of neglect, 38 (d) (2) serious risk of sexual abuse, 38 (

c) psychological ill-treatment and 38 (e) (2) serious risk of physical abuse. [ 27 ] The plan suggested by the DYP answers all the child’s needs. She is well taken care by her maternal aunt, she is developing very well and she remains with extended family members allowing her to maintain contacts with her mother. [ 28 ] The Court would like to underline that despite the numerous postponement this file had been the object of, the father came at the Court each time and doing so, demonstrated that he feels concerns by his daughter’s situation.

He deserves to obtain the support of the DYP to get more free time for his parental responsibilities. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Ms. D, and if Ms.

D is accredited as a foster family, entrust the child under her care as such; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child not come into contact with the father, without the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection at any time, until the father submit himself to 3 meetings with the Youth Protection; [ 33 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection will help the father by communicating with his employer to have days off for the meetings with the Youth Protection worker; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child not come into contact with the mother’s boyfriend, namely Mr.

E; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2031. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: June 8, 2022