2017 QCCQ 5098, 2017 QCCQ 5098

Protection de la jeunesse — 172288 2017 QCCQ 5098 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031806-169 DATE : April 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2007 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on April 26, 2017. [ 2 ] For almost two years, the family was followed by the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) under voluntary measures agreements.

This involvement was warranted as the parents exposed the children to incidents of conjugal violence. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that youth protection’s involvement is still necessary in order to address numerous issues with the family (conjugal violence, ensuring proper structure within the family). [ 4 ] The Director recommends that the child remains entrusted to the mother’s care at the exclusion of the father.

The Director also recommends that aid, counsel, assistance and other support measures be put in place for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother is in agreement with the proposed plan. [ 6 ] The father would prefer that the file be closed. [ 7 ] The child’s lawyer is of the opinion that the Director’s intervention is necessary. She suggests that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entrust the child to the mother’s care at the father’s exclusion and that contacts between the child and the father could be arranged between the parties.

Question in litigation [ 8 ] Is the security or development of the child compromised? If so, are the measures proposed in the best interest of the child and respecting the child’s rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] From December 19, 2014, until November 27, 2016, the child’s situation was subject to voluntary measures due to exposure to conjugal violence.

[ 10 ] The parents exposed the child to numerous episodes of conjugal violence. The police had to intervene on October 18, 2014, May 25, 2015 and October 8, 2015. [ 11 ] On May 25, 2015, the father was charged and arrested for assault. These charges were later dropped. [ 12 ] Despite repeated encouragements, the parents have not participated in specialized services regarding conjugal violence or separation. The mother took

part in services with Côté Cour. [ 13 ] The mother still experiences difficulties in exerting her parental authority with the child and his sister Y. She benefits from meetings with a psychologist regarding her anxiety. [ 14 ] From January 2015 to August 2016, an educator (Mr. [Social Worker 1]) worked extensively with the child in relation to his behavioural challenges and his tendency to have severe temper tantrums in the home. The child has been doing well in school for quite some time. Recently, he has exhibited self-harming behaviours at Columba House, a specialized after school program.

On January 31, 2017, he was suspended from that program after exhibiting behaviour that put other children at risk. The child was referred to the Douglas Hospital to receive a psychiatric evaluation specific for autism. [ 15 ] In October 2016, contrary to the voluntary measures agreed in April 2016, the father spent overnights at the mother’s residence. The child was again exposed to incidents of verbal and physical violence between the parents. [ 16 ] On November 2, 2016, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the mother’s care at the exclusion of the father.

The Tribunal ordered that aid, counsel, assistance and other support measures be provided to the family until the main hearing. [ 17 ] Recently, the father has refused to communicate with the youth protection worker. Since January 9, 2017, he only saw his children during the February 18/19 weekend. [ 18 ] At this point, the family has to deal with multiple stressors. The child has to compose with the impact of the recent and past incidents of conjugal violence. The mother has to meet the children’s needs without the father’s support.

The mother has to deal with her personal medical issues as well as the situation of the maternal grandmother, who is in palliative care. Y’s recent return to the family’s environment needs to be stabilized. Y’s relationship with her mother and the definition of her role and tasks within the family remains an issue. This week, an educator started working with the family. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered ( sections 38

c) and b) 1 o iii of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined after agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to conjugal violence; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] TAKES ACT that this help will also be offered by the services of an educator; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Signed on May 4, 2017 /cd Mtre Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Luce James Counsel for the child Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: April 26, 2017