2022 QCCQ 8042, 2022 QCCQ 8042

Protection de la jeunesse — 222392 2022 QCCQ 8042 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002745-211 DATE: February 2, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...], Applicant and A, deceased, Mother and B, Tutor ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are in danger under

section 38 b) (1) (i), (iii) and e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] To summarize, the DYP alleges that the children were mistreated by their legal tutor and consequently, they have to be entrusted to a foster family until August 1, 2022. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 3 ] The legal tutor, Ms. B is absent and she is not represented. [ 4 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], social worker for the DYP, testified about the steps she took to reach the tutor before the day of the present hearing. She was served the documents and Ms. [Social Worker 1] also testified that Ms.

B told her that she didn’t want to come to court today. [ 5 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES having jurisdiction to proceed in her absence. [ 6 ] The child is not present but he is represented. Through his lawyer, he admits all the factual allegations of the DYP and he agrees with the measures. [ 7 ] Furthermore, the child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in the best interest of the child.

Facts [ 8 ] The DYP filed its documentary evidence and Ms. [Social Worker 1] also testified. [ 9 ] The Court’s decision is based on that unchallenged evidence. analysis [ 10 ] From that evidence, the Court concludes that the child was neglected by his tutor and that he was the victim of physical abuse by her on many occasion. [ 11 ] It is also proven that the tutor, Ms. B, was consuming alcohol almost every day and that she did not adequately provide food to the child.

[ 12 ] As a consequence of the abuse the child was subjected to, he ran away from the tutor’s home for a period of 10 days and when he was located, he expressed clearly that he didn’t want to go back. [ 13 ] The evidence established clearly that the child was subjected to numerous forms of neglect and that many events occurred over several months. [ 14 ] The Court finds also worrisome that between 2016 and December 2021, 11 events of alleged situations of neglect were brought to the attention of the DYP.

After investigation, the DYP considered the facts founded for six of those events and the security and development was considered compromised for five of those events. [ 15 ] Questioned about why nothing was done before recently to remove the child from the care of Ms. B, Ms. [Social Worker 1] explained that since the child and his siblings were afraid to be separated from each other and sent to different foster home, they kept silent about what they were going through under the care of Ms. B. [ 16 ] But recently, one of the child’s older sibling, Ms. C, became an adult and consequently, left the house of Ms. B.

She was then able to confirm the allegations of neglect and violence towards the children and she offered the DYP to take charge of her younger siblings. [ 17 ] This is basically the main measure proposed by the DYP to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger. [ 18 ] After careful analysis of all the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are indeed in danger on many aspects and also concludes that the measures proposed by the DYP are appropriate and respecting the rights of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger regarding

section 38 b) (1) (iii), 38 b) (1) (i), 38 c), 38 e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms. C; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for 6 months.

Signed on March 24, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the Applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Date of hearing: February 2, 2022