2020 QCCQ 15099, 2020 QCCQ 15099

Protection de la jeunesse — 2010071 2020 QCCQ 15099 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000830-190 DATE: August 18, 2020 (written judgment rendered on October 6, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on June 25, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to her parents with other measures for a period of 12 months. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends that the child be entrusted to her parents for a period of six months, at the condition that the mother and the father are not present together in the presence of the child and in accordance to a calendar of visits established by the DYP, with the possibility of removing the conditions by the DYP if the situation allows it. [ 3 ] The child has two half-brothers, Y who is 11 years old and Z who is 10 years old.

The Court is also seized with their situation and proceed on a joint hearing. Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is present, but not represented. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, she agrees with most of the measures, but do not want to be prevented from being with the father in the presence of the children. [ 5 ] The father is present, but not represented.

He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered, he agrees with most of the measures, but do not want to be prevented from being with the mother in the presence of the child. [ 6 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Antoine Meunier. He submits to the Court that the security and development are still endangered and he recommends the Court to grant the measures as suggested. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On May 16, 2017 , the Court was seized with an application for protection and ratifies a draft agreement.

The child lived with her parents who regularly consume cannabis and have a conflictual conjugal relationship. The child witnesses those conflicts. The parents separated for a few months and resumed their relation.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and maintained the child with her parents, the whole for a period of 12 months. [ 8 ] On April 4, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measure and maintain the child under her parents’ care to the condition that they would not be together in her presence. [ 9 ] On June 25, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection and ratifies a draft agreement. The parents recognized that they continue to evolve in a conflictual conjugal relationship.

The conflicts occur in the presence of the child, and she has a prohibition to speak about this violence. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [2] ,

maintained the child under her parents care to the condition that they would not be together in the presence of the child, the whole for a period of 12 months. Facts [ 10 ] The DYP alleges that since summer 2019, the mother is back with the father. He received a psychological follow-up for his anger management issue, but no medical evaluation. Important conflicts still occur between them. The mother does not feel the need to receive any follow-up. The situation remains fragile. [ 11 ] The parents admit all the alleged facts. They recognize that they evolve in a conflictual relationship.

Both are affected by this situation, and they want to address it. Both have the desire to remain in this relationship and to improve their communication. [ 12 ] The mother considers that she has less responsibility in the conflict than the father. She wants him to receive services to be able to communicate better when something happened. She recognizes that the conflicts affects the children on the moment, but she does not consider that they could be affected on a long term basis.

For her, the children are less affected by the conflicts than they are by the prohibition for the parents to be together. [ 13 ] The father totally recognizes his difficulty to express his emotions. He confirms that as soon as something does not work as he wants, he becomes aggressive. He uses to leave the house as soon as he feels the tension and that helps a lot, but he knows that he still has aspect to work on. He admits having a bigger part of responsibility in the conflict than the mother has. [ 14 ] The father considers Z and Y as his own children and would like to live with them.

As the mother, he wants the family is reunited immediately. [ 15 ] On June 26, 2020, a conflict occurred between the parents because of a broken washing machine. The father immediately call the DYP worker to let her know about the situation. All together they tried to find a solution to protect the children. The first option was to entrust the children to relatives to give time to the parents to discuss about the situation and their desire for the future. But unfortunately, no one was available to take care of the children.

Doing so, they convened that the mother would live at a friend’s house and the children will be with the parents to the conditions that the parents were not together. [ 16 ] For the mother, this situation since June 2020, is difficult. Her friend also has children, so it is difficult to receive her own children. To facilitate the access, the father leaves the house when the mother is available to see the children and she exercises her contact at the family house. [ 17 ] The DYP recommend that the situation remain the same for the next six months with a possibility to allow contacts if the situation allows it.

Considering the parents live in such conflictual relationship for seven years, for the DYP worker, these issues cannot be resolved in one month. Both parents need to receive help and progressively be reunited to see if they are capable of using the different tools. [ 18 ] The father agrees to receive services, but wishes to see a social worker at the hospital. A request has been made, but the delay before receiving such service is unknown. It could be until six months.

He could also receive service from another organization, but he knows someone who works there, and doing so, he is less at ease to go there. [ 19 ] The mother notes that when the DYP worker weekly met with the father, the situation was better. The Court asks the DYP worker if she, or a colleague, could provide such intensity of service. She is open to that, but needs to discuss first with her supervisor as in such conjugal relationship it could not be recommended to take more time with one parent and less with the other one.

But she accepts to discuss about that with the parents and see with them if they would agree. Analysis [ 20 ] Despite the perception of the mother, the children are obviously affected by the conflict at home. This situation has an impact on their current and future development. The parents are conscious of the conflicts, and now they have to understand the consequences of those conflicts. [ 21 ] The mother has to be helped to understand more about that.

The father, on his side, has to address his anger management issues and to apply the tools to resolve an issue he is well aware of. [ 22 ] The Court is preoccupied by the uncertain delay for the father to receive services. The requests were made and at the end, it is important that he receive services from different professionals, but as long as he waits to receive such services, the children also wait to see the family reunited. [ 23 ] The children do not have to wait and a temporary solution has to be found.

For this reason, and considering the opening of the parents to receive services from the DYP, considering also the link of confidence between them and Ms. [Social Worker 1], the Court will order the DYP to offer the most appropriate support waiting for the service to be offered by another organization.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are still endangered; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her parents for a period of six months, at the condition that the mother and the father are not present together in the presence of the child and in accordance to a calendar of visits established by the Director of Youth Protection, with the possibility of removing the conditions by the Director of Youth Protection if the situation allows it;

[ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family for a period of 12 months; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report themselves periodically to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively on the measures they use to put an end to the situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the father seek professional services in regard to his personal situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the father get a medical assessment in regard to his personal situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother seek professional services in regard to her situation; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between all the professionals involved in the children and the parents' situation and the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a close follow-up to the parents waiting for them to be able to receive professional help from the health centre or any other organization; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Antoine Meunier, attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 18, 2020