2021 QCCQ 15249, 2021 QCCQ 15249

Protection de la jeunesse — 218792 2021 QCCQ 15249 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002675-210 DATE: August 9, 2021 (written judgment rendered on October 27, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 [...], 2015, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (2) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family and be gradually reintegrated under the care of the parents as soon as the situation allows it, until August 31, 2022. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Geneviève Lucas. Regarding the situation of endangerment under

section 38 b) 1 iii and c), the mother leaves it to the discretion of the Court, but she denies specifically that the situation is endangered under

section 38 (e) (2). She wants her child to be back under her care immediately. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. He has the same position as the mother. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. After hearing the evidence, Me Neptune submits that the situation should be declared endangered and that the measures are in the child’s best interest. [ 6 ] X has one sibling, Y (16 months), the Court is also seized with her situation. Facts [ 7 ] The children were reported to the DYP services in June 2020.

After evaluation, the DYP concluded in July 2020, that their situation was endangered due to the poor supervision and the inappropriate parental attitude, risk of physical abuse by the father an exposure to conjugal violence caused by the father. [ 8 ] On August 18, 2020, the parent signed an agreement on voluntary measures. The parents recognized the grounds of endangerment and more precisely what follows: - Their alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues; - They have exposed their children to their personal issues and therefore they have left their children without proper supervision and

exposed them to conjugal violence; - The father, while intoxicated, threaten to kill the child Y with a knife; [ 9 ] At that date, the child was entrusted to a foster family for one year. [ 10 ] This intervention was the second one in the life of the child.

Indeed, from March 2016 to August 2018, the family received services due to the exposure of conjugal violence caused by the father and the parents’ alcohol consumption issues. [ 11 ] As mentioned, the actual follow-up started in June 2020, and required many interventions from the DYP during the summer for events of conjugal violence, alcohol consumption and psychological instability on the mother’s part.

On one occasion, the father was also arrested while he was intoxicated on the street with his youngest daughter and he was threatening to kill her. [ 12 ] In July 2020, as the parents were not collaborative, the DYP seized the Court with an application for provisional measures. They finally agreed to sign the agreement on voluntary measures, and the judicial process ended. [ 13 ] The parents are in relation for 8 years, and their relation is unstable since the beginning. While intoxicated, they regularly fight and they get separated and resume their relation short after.

When they are in this state of mind, their children are obviously not their priority. That being said, when they are sober, those parents are known to have very good parental capacities and taking very good care of their children. The father is working and provide financially for the family. The mother does not work and takes care of the children at home. [ 14 ] X started school, and she is doing very well. She is developing well in all the spheres of her life. She was first entrusted to her maternal grandmother from August 2020 to February 2021.

The grandmother became overwhelmed with her job and the fact that she had to control the contacts with the parents which she was not able to do. [ 15 ] From February 2021 to beginning of June 2021, X was fostered by C, her paternal aunt, but she left for Town B for personal reason without notifying the DYP. As the child was moving from one family member to another, she had to be stabilized and Ms. D, another paternal aunt, offered to have her under her care. [ 16 ] At the beginning of the measures, Y was fostered by the maternal grandmother.

The mother was involved and took care of the child during the day while the grandmother was working. In March 2021, the grandmother gave up of taking care of the child and she was moved to 2 different foster families before being entrusted to Ms. E, a family member living in the same community. [ 17 ] Despite the steps taken to maintain the 2 girls together, it had not been possible to do so. [ 18 ] At the beginning of the measures, the parents were collaborative.

The father started a follow-up at the Social Services with the addiction counsellor, and he respected his criminal conditions not to be alone with his daughters. The mother refused to attend Social Services meetings, but she was open to receive services from the DYP. They were both very caring towards their children. [ 19 ] On October 27, 2020, the father’s criminal conditions were withdrawn as he was acquitted from the accusations against his daughter. Then he was allowed to be back home with the mother.

From this moment, the parents’ situation degenerated and many reports were received regarding the parents were intoxicated in the presence of the children and doing so, not able to supervise the children properly. [ 20 ] After a few weeks of sobriety, the parents relapsed and the situation degenerated again. Luckily, they continued to be collaborative, but they do not seem to totally realize the seriousness of their issues. The last event of alcohol consumption was 2 weeks before the hearing. The last event of conjugal violence is unknown from the DYP worker.

The DYP worker is concerned by the level of the parents’ collaboration which was irregular in the past and hope that they will continue to collaborate as they are doing currently. [ 21 ] The child has very strong bonds with her parents and has difficulty to get separated from them. The contacts occur twice a week from 11 Am to 4:30 Pm. The parents have to confirm their presence before. They exercised all their contacts and were never intoxicated. The unannounced visits never revealed any issue.

If the parents are able to improve their situation as they did recently, the DYP worker plan to increase the contacts. [ 22 ] The mother confirms the improvement of her situation. She confirms her commitment to collaborate with the DYP services and any other resources. She also agrees with the unannounced visits when the children are with her. [ 23 ] The mother reduced her alcohol consumption and wants to stop definitively. She consumes to deal with her anxiety, but she recognizes that it is not an appropriate way.

She would like to quit drinking because she was raised in an alcohol consumption environment and she realizes that because of her consumption, she puts her children in the same situation as she was. Analysis [ 24 ] The evidence shows that the parents’ way of life put their children in a situation of endangerment. Indeed, their alcohol consumption issues prevent them from providing an appropriate environment and adequate supervision for their children. Also, due to their alcohol consumption, their relation is unstable and conflictual.

The children witness their conflicts and the violence between them. [ 25 ] The DYP alleged that the children’s situation is also endangered due to the risk of physical abuse from the part of the father. This ground of endangerment could not be retained considering the absence of admission, the father’s acquittal in the criminal case and more particularly, the lack of evidence from the applicant on the alleged facts. The burden in civil matter is lower than in criminal matter, and evidence should have been done. [ 26 ] Regarding the measures, the Court notes that the children are entrusted for one year.

Generally and recently the parents’

situation evolved positively enough to bring the DYP to think about increasing the contacts. Indeed, the parents are always present during those contacts and no issues were raised. The parents are known to have good parental capacities and for taking good care of their children. [ 27 ] The Court would like to give them the time to deeply root their improvement and will order that the children be entrusted. But, considering the improvement of the parents’ situation and their willingness to continue in this way, the duration suggested is too long to achieve this goal.

The interest of the children requires that the efforts be put on a reintegration rather than maintaining them in a foster family. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2015, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until no later than Novem-ber 30, 2021, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of the parents as soon as the situation allows it; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that X be entrusted to Ms.

D; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection to a minimal frequency of twice a week; [ 34 ] ORDERS that visits be increased in a way to facilitate the reintegration under the parents’ care; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the services of an external educator be provided to the family at a minimum frequency of once every two weeks and if no external educator is available in the village of Town A, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection that such services be provided by a Youth Protection worker with the same frequency; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the parents’ place; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 39 ] Considering their consent, ORDERS that the parents participate to a follow-up with the Social Services as soon as the services will be available and to participate to any other kind of follow-up as for examples Elders, AA meeting or any other resources they could appreciate, to work on their alcohol consumption, personal and conjugal relation issues; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE until August 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 9, 2021