2018 QCCQ 19681, 2018 QCCQ 19681

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810792 2018 QCCQ 19681 JA1021 COURT OF QUEBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Nº: 505-41-009175-185 DATE: December 14, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE JEAN-PIERRE AUTHIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the director of Youth Protection A (The Director) Applicant — and — X, born on [...],2012 Children — and — A Mother — and — B Father ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G E M E N T

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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] This judgment confirms and motivates the order made forthwith on December 14 , 2018. [ 2 ] The Director submits an application for protection in which she alleges that the security development of the children are endangered for various reasons —physical abuse for X who is six years old, serious risk of physical abuse for Y and Z who are four and two years old and psychological ill-treatment for all three children —, so that she requires the intervention of this Tribunal. [ 3 ] The Director recommends, as a principal measure, that the children are entrusted to their father wi th a social follow-up for six months. [ 4 ] The parents make various admissions, thus recognizing the grounds for the intervention by the Director and agree with the measures sought. [ 5 ] The children’s lawyer works within the framework of a legal mandate.

He agrees to the measures proposed at the end of the

hearing. CONTEXT [ 6 ] The children have been upon shared custody since their parents separated in April 2017. A Superior Court granted custody to the father in July of 2018, Mother was given visiting rights upon agreement between the parents. [ 7 ] The parents have been in conflict concerning numerous topics — custody, visiting rights, money issues — since their separation. Moreover, the mother has a newborn child — which is the subject of a judgment from this Court — with her partner, Mr.

C . [ 8 ] The mother affirms that her partner, has been physically abusing the child X on two separate episodes — a slap in the face, and later on grabbing the child by the throat while Mother was bathing him which left bruises on June 10, 2018. The partner admitted to those facts and informed the Director that he would seek help from his psychiatrist. [ 9 ] It is also reported that on June 27, 2018, Mother left her residence with X and Y during a conflict between herself and Mr. C to take refuge in the home of the father. Mr.

C then went on the premises armed with an iron bar and forced the door to then threaten the mother and father of the children in front of them. Police report states that the children were scared and crying. [ 10 ] Mr. C was arrested and detained and then transferred to a psychiatric detention facility to be treated. It appears that his medication was adjusted and that he is now under control — he is present at the Courthouse today. [ 11 ] The children were exposed to the conflicts between the adults and the physical abuse on X.

The latter X has numerous mental health issues to which the parents neglected to assess for different reasons. [ 12 ] It should be noted for the record that a report — signalement — on a serious risk of sexual abuse was not retained by the Director so that the undersigned believes that there is no need to expand on the subject any further.

ANALYSIS [ 13 ] Having weighed the evidence submitted by the parties, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence shows that the security and development of the children are in danger for the reasons given by the Director. [ 14 ] The facts alleged in the motion are barely contested if contested at all. [ 15 ] Taking into consideration the entered evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the children’s entrustment to their father is the most appropriate measure and the only one that best suits their interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the applications filed on August 10 and 28 th , 2018; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger because of a situation of physical abuse and psychological ill-treatment; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be upon agreement between the parties; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother does not put the child in contact with Mr. C unless an agreement between all the parties is agreed upon; [ 21 ] TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE that Mr.

C engages himself not to be in contact with the child, unless an agreement between all the parties is agreed upon; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE until June 14, 2019. ________________________________ Jean-Pierre Authier , J.C.Q. Mrs. Amélie St-Denis, Attorney for the Director Mr.

Jean-Pierre Gaudreau, Attorney for the child

Mrs. Alissa Provost, Attorney for the mother Mrs. Kathleen O’Meara , Attorney for the father Hearing date: December 14, 2018