2010 QCCQ 21065, 2010 QCCQ 21065

Protection de la jeunesse — 108701 2010 QCCQ 21065 JG1314 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE […] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N o : 525-41-022693-097 DATE : 23 décembre 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE : L’HONORABLE JUGE LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de l'enfant : X née le […] 2008 [INTERVENANTE 1] , personne autorisée par le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse La personne déclarante -et- A -et- B Les parents mis en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en vertu de l’article 95

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, dans laquelle la Directrice allègue que la situation de l’enfant exige une prolongation de l’ordonnance rendue le 26 novembre 2009 dans laquelle le Tribunal ordonnait l’hébergement de l’enfant en famille d'accueil de même que certaines mesures visant à corriger la situation. [ 2 ] La Directrice recommande au Tribunal d’ordonner l’hébergement de l’enfant en famille d'accueil dans un contexte où la mère a un projet concret d’aller vivre à Ville A. [ 3 ] Le père a admis l’essentiel des faits allégués et a exprimé son accord avec les recommandations. [ 4 ] La mère admet les fait allégués et exprime son accord avec les recommandations. [ 5 ] La mère a fait un travail immense pour régler sa situation.

Elle a encore besoin d’aide. Par ailleurs, elle reconnaît l’état de compromission de son enfant. [ 6 ] Compte tenu des admissions faites par les parents, de la preuve documentaire au soutien de la procédure, le Tribunal conclut que la sécurité et le développement de l’enfant demeurent compromis pour ces motifs. [ 7 ] Le Tribunal retient les éléments suivants : ˛ since the last court order, the child has stayed in the same foster family; ˛ in the weeks following the last court order, the parents continued to use drugs and alcohol; ˛ in March 2010, the mother underwent a treatment program at Center A.

The mother is abstinent since that time; ˛ in May 2010, the father underwent a treatment program for substance abuse and his reported not to consume; ˛ the mother has resumed her relationship with the father and she is pregnant with another child of the father; ˛ neither parent as addressed the issue of conjugal violence nor have they completed treatment;

˛ the collaboration of the father was minimal; ˛ the father refused to undergo a risk assessment for perpetrators of sexual abuse on minor children; ˛ there were incidents of domestic violence between the parents; ˛ on one (1) occasion the mother showed up with a black eye at a meeting with the worker; ˛ the parents continue to minimize the ongoing conjugal violence and the impact of it on the family; ˛ the mother has maintained regular access with the child even if in the beginning she cancelled some visits because of substance abuse; ˛ the mother prioritizes her relationship with the father instead of her relationship with the child; ˛ at the present time, the situation of the parents does not permit the child to be entrusted to the care of her parents.

Quant aux mesures [ 8 ] L’intervenante sociale analyse ainsi la situation dans son rapport déposé sous la cote D-1 : « From the onset of the undersigned’s involvement, there had been significant concerns regarding Mr. B’s past incidents of perpetrating sexual abuse on minors, his minimal collaboration with the Department of Youth Protection, the couple’s history of substance abuse and history of conjugal violence. Mr. B during his incarceration for sexually abusing a female minor under the age of ten, he completed a program for perpetrators of sexual offenders of minors while incarcerated for these offences.

This program was completed November 30 th , 2000. There has been a chronic history of conjugal violence and anger issues between the couple, including another incident in this review period that led Ms. A to have a black eye in December 2009. Ms. A has learnt the terminology from the conjugal violence program and is adept at repeating what she has learnt; however, it is clear that she has not integrated the theory that she was taught. The minimization of the seriousness of the situation from Ms. A continues to be a concern as demonstrated by her desire to spend every opportunity with Mr. B.

To date, neither has completes a program for conjugal violence, furthermore, Ms. A missed several sessions, mostly to be in the community with Mr. B. Recently, the couple began addressing their substance abuse issues. While Ms. A was enrolled at Center A Mother and Child program, it was asked for Ms. A to find activities other than spending her time with Mr. B, build other relationships and support systems. Ms. A has been resistant to this direction. Since the couple were permitted to have community time together unsupervised during their rehabilitation, it made stipulations around the visits between Ms.

A and X difficult to orchestrate. Of note, Ms. A remained at Center A without her daughter and has been abstinent for six (6) months. Ms. A repeatedly mentioned how difficult it is for her to fully engage in the program without having her daughter entrusted to her. It had been explained to Ms. A that due to her relationship with Mr. B, and Center A’s philosophy for residents to be in the community unsupervised. It is for this reason thy there had been a delay in entrusting X to her care. Ms. A could not be trusted to ensure that unsupervised contacts between X and Mr. B do not occur. Mr.

B has been in rehabilitation since May 2010 and assumed to have maintained sobriety since. At the end of the current court order, X has been entrusted to the same foster home for eighteen (18) months. X is becoming attached to her foster family and identifies her foster father as “daddy”. The undersigned has observed Ms. A with X on several occasions and the visits are positive. Ms. A is very responsive, reads her daughter’s cues very well, is attentive at medical appointments and asks pertinent questions, demonstrating a caring demeanour. X is always pleased to see her mother and clearly identifies Ms.

A as “mommy”. However, Ms. A continues to be unable to prioritize X’s needs over her relationship with Mr. B. Recently, after divulging that she is pregnant, Ms. A has reported that she is prepared to take a break from her relationship with Mr. B in order to have X entrusted to her care. This needs to be monitored closely in the next review period. As it is believed her decision to take a break is strategic rather than because of acknowledgement of the risk factors. It has been noted that X has a healthy attachment with her mother. Ms.

A has a natural ability of parenting X; their relationship appears to be genuine and serene. Ms. A assumes parental care and maintenance of X. However her unfaltering stance, until recently to maintain a relations with Mr. B, puts into question Ms. A’s judgement. As well, Mr. B refusal to complete a recidivism assessment for perpetrators of sexual abusers on minors highlights a lack of understanding of the protection issues for X.

Given the seriousness and the chronicity of these issues and vulnerability of X Youth Protection must remain involved to ensure the family follows through with the recommendations. » [ 9 ] Ce rapport fut signé le 7 octobre 2010. [ 10 ] Depuis, certains développements sont survenus dans la situation. En effet, la mère a exprimé clairement qu’elle voudrait déménager à Ville A. Elle reconnaît, par ailleurs, la nécessité de l’implication des services de protection de l’enfance de cet endroit. En conséquence, le 29 octobre 2010, une demande a été faite au Ville A Children Services pour évaluer la mère.

Une dame du nom de C serait prête à accueillir l’enfant à

titre de famille d'accueil ou de personne désignée à qui la mère pourrait confier son enfant.

[ 11 ] La preuve révèle que le contexte familial dans lequel vit madame C ne présente pas de difficultés, que c’est une bonne famille. Par ailleurs, elle et son conjoint ont à eux huit (8) enfants. Des modifications à leur résidence devront être apportées si l’enfant doit y résider. Il s’agit d’une évaluation que les services d’aide à l’enfance de Ville A assumeront. Quant aux contacts entre l’enfant et ses parents [ 12 ] L’intervenante sociale, madame [intervenante 1], s’exprime ainsi à la page 1 du rapport déposé sous D-2 : « X’s visits are separate between both parents.

It is unknown at this time how the relationship will develop between the child and her father as Mr. B has not been greatly involved thus far. X displays some anxiety when the exchange between mother and father takes place. However, Mr. B to date has been able to calm X in an appropriate fashion. Mr. B also brings food to the visits. It has also been noted that X appears to eat more during her visits with her father and identifies him as “daddy”. »

Quant aux tests aléatoires [ 13 ] Voici les observations de l’intervenante sociale : « Random drug testing was conducted on November 10, 30, and December 9, 2010 for Ms. A. Tests resulted negative for marijuana, cocaine and alcohol on all three (3) tests. Testing was not requested for any other substances. From the onset of the undersigned’s involvement, there had been significant concerns regarding Mr. B’s past incidents of perpetrating sexual abuse on minors, his minimal collaboration with the Department of Youth Protection, the couple’s history of substance and history of conjugal violence. »

Concernant les programmes adéquats pour abuseurs sexuels [ 14 ] Voici le constat de l’intervenante : « During Mr. B’s incarceration for sexually abusing a female minor under the age of ten, he completed a program for perpetrators of sexual offenders of minors. This program was completed. » [ 15 ] Par ailleurs, l’intervenante sociale recommande au Tribunal d’ordonner une évaluation complémentaire pour vérifier les risques de récidive et cette évaluation est hautement justifiée.

Quant à la violence conjugale : « There has been a chronic history of conjugal violence and anger issues between the couple, including another incident in this review period that led Ms. A to have a black eye in December 2009. Ms. A will be successfully completing the program at the A Violence clinic in the next weeks therefore documentation is pending. Mr. B has not yet begun a program for perpetrators of conjugal violence. However, it has been noted that he is enrolled in anger management treatment through the YMCA. » Concernant l’ensemble des questions soulevées dans le contexte familial : « Of note, Ms.

A remained at Center A Mother and Child program without her daughter for six (6) months and has also remained abstinent for six (6) months. After being discharge from Center A’s program, Ms. A enrolled herself at A Pavilion in September 2010 and will be completing the mentioned program before the end of this year to which documentation is pending. Mr. B has been in rehabilitation since May 2010 and assumed to have maintained sobriety since. At the end of the current court order, X has been entrusted to the same foster home for eighteen (18) months.

X is becoming attached to her foster family and identifies her foster father as “daddy”. Ms. A is prepared for a new start in city A, whereby she has more family ties to support her. Ms. A has expressed her willingness to receive services from Child Welfare Services in city A. Mr. B reports that he is prepared to sever all ties with Ms. A and with X if it entails that X is permanently placed with Ms. A. Ms. A wishes that X be entrusted to her while residing in city A and is prepared to work with the Department of Youth Protection of city A. The undersigned has observed Ms.

A with X on several occasions and the visits are positive. Ms. A is very responsive, reads her daughter’s cues very well, is attentive at medical appointments and asks pertinent questions, demonstrating a caring demeanour. X is always pleased to see her mother rand identifies Ms. A as “mommy”. It has been noted that X has a healthy attachment with her mother Ms. A has a natural ability of parenting X, their relationship appears to be genuine. Ms. A assumes parental care and maintenance of X.

Given the seriousness and the chronicity of these issues and the vulnerability of X, Youth Protection must remain involved to ensure that the family follows through with the recommendations. » [ 16 ] Il appert que si la mère concrétise son projet d’aller vivre à Ville A, ce qui est fort probable, l’intervenante sociale l’accompagnera à l’aéroport avec l’enfant et une intervenante sociale de Ville A, des Services de protection à l’enfance de Ville A, sera présente à l’aéroport de Ville A à l’arrivée de la mère. [ 17 ] Une évaluation des services sera effectuée alors et une collaboration entre les services sociaux de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse des Centres A et ceux de Ville A sera maintenue tant et aussi longtemps qu’une autre ordonnance ne sera pas rendue dans un autre district judiciaire tenant compte de la situation de la mère, des besoins de l’enfant et de la capacité de la mère à y répondre. [ 18 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT:

[ 19 ] GRANTS this motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still considered to be in danger; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS X to a foster home chosen by DYP of city A for a period of one (1) as of today; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the father undergo and updated assessment for perpetrators of sexual abuse to minors, meaning a risk of recidivism assessment and ORDERS that he follows all the recommendations; [ 23 ] MAINTAINS all the measures ordered November 26 th , 2009: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be provided with all of the necessary medical services required to address her medical needs; [ 25 ] ORDERS a minimum of two (2) contacts per week, two (2) hours each, between the child and the mother, and any other contact be agreed upon by all parties including supervision until no longer deemed necessary; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between father and X be determined by the DYP, including supervision until no longer deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that parents engage in a substance abuse treatment program and follow the recommendations made; [ 28 ] ORDERS that parents refrain from all mood-altering substances unless prescribed by a doctor; [ 29 ] ORDERS that parents submit to random drug/alcohol testing upon the request of the worker; [ 30 ] ORDERS that father undergo a treatment program for men who are perpetrators of conjugal violence; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that mother, if needed, engage herself in a treatment program for women of conjugal violence; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from all forms of physical and verbal aggression in the presence of the child; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the both parents fully collaborate with the DYP including meeting with the worker upon request and inform the worker of any change of coordinates within 24 hours; [ 34 ] AUTHORIZES DYP to obtain, receive and exchange information with social services in city A; [ 35 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of one (1) year; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the DYP of A and Youth Protection services. __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Champeval Avocate de la DPJ M e Michelle Robidoux Avocate de l'enfant M e Jean-Hervé Thomas Avocat de la mère M e Judith Shapiro Knight Avocate du père Date d’audience : 23 décembre 2010 LG/cdl