2022 QCCQ 8031, 2022 QCCQ 8031

Protection de la jeunesse — 222381 2022 QCCQ 8031 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002633-219 DATE: February 1, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2013 [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, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on April 23, 2021, by the honourable Éric Hamel, J.C.Q. regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. [ 2 ] At that date the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger and entrusted the child to her parents until April 22, 2022. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the child with her parents and that the placement has to be prolonged. [ 4 ] The DYP argue that the parents display alcohol problems and conjugal violence issues and that the child and her siblings were subjected to physical abuse from the father. [ 5 ] Therefore, the DYP is asking the Court to entrust the child to a foster family for one year, with a potential reintegration with the parents if the situation allows it.

Position of the parties [ 6 ] The mother is present and represented. She denies or ignores the factual allegations of the DYP and she does not agree with the proposed measures either. [ 7 ] The father is also present, but he is not represented. He denies the physical abuse, but at the same time, he expresses his agreement with the measures proposed by the DYP. [ 8 ] The child is absent, but she is represented on a legal mandate.

The lawyer representing the child agrees with the DYP’s recommendation and states that they are in the child’s best interest. [ 9 ] The DYP filed documentary evidence, which was completed by the testimony of Ms. [Social Worker 1]. The mother testified on her behalf as well as the father. [ 10 ] The Court took knowledge of the documentary evidence complemented by the testimonial evidence. The present decision is based on the careful analysis of that evidence. Facts [ 11 ] For a better understanding of the context in which the present decision is rendered, the Court finds it relevant to summarize the

family constellation of the youth. [ 12 ] The mother had nine children with two different fathers. The four oldest children were born from the union of the mother and Mr. C. From those 4 children, 3 are still under the age of 18. Before the DYP’s latest intervention, the child was living with her parents, with her four siblings and with her three older maternal half-siblings. [ 13 ] The evidence of the DYP established that since the last measure, the parents did not improve their situation significantly.

They still struggle with an alcohol addiction and with conjugal violence. [ 14 ] It is also established that during the last measure, the children were subjected to violence on the part of the father. The violence occurred while Mr. B was either sober or intoxicated. That violence towards the children is denied by Mr. B and by the mother. The Court will come back later on their testimony. [ 15 ] It is furthermore established that the mother did not always prioritize the best interest of her children during the last measure.

She did not collaborate with the DYP on many aspects and she did not provide at all time a clean and safe living environment to her children; an environment exempt of alcohol and violence. Finally, it is also clear from the evidence that the mother is going through a difficult time in her life right now. [ 16 ] In support of his demand, the DYP present to the Court a long list of events involving the parents.

The Court will summarize the most relevant ones. [ 17 ] On July 30, 2021, the police and the Social services intervened with the parents because they got into a fight, while intoxicated, in the presence of the children. Through her lawyer, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event, but the said event is admitted by the father. [ 18 ] On August 2, 2021, the police had to intervene again, but this time with the father, since he was physically abusive towards the children. According to the uncle, Mr. D, the father had banged the children’s head against the wall and he was screaming at them.

Following the incident, the father was asked to leave the house by the police. Again, the mother expressed having no recollection of that event. [ 19 ] The day after, the child and her siblings were found in the house, without proper supervision, while the mother and another adult were both deeply asleep and could not be awaken. [ 20 ] Unfortunately, Mr.

D, the uncle who was acting as a safety net for the children, suffered an ATV accident on August 4, 2021, and he have been in a coma ever since. [ 21 ] That same day, a meeting was held with the parents to explain why the DYP intended to entrust all the children to a foster home. [ 22 ] According to the evidence provided by the DYP, the father admitted the alcohol consumption issues and stated that he was still open to receive services from social services. [ 23 ] As for the mother, she did not collaborate, she screamed at the workers and asked them to leave the house.

She did not admit any of the problems that were raised by the DYP and it is only after the father had left the house that she was able to calm down and provides names for a potential foster family for her children. However, when the DYP raised the situation of her youngest child, the mother once again stopped to collaborate and the DYP workers had to call the police for assistance in order to get the children out of the house. [ 24 ] From August 5 to August 11, 2021, the mother called the DYP’s emergency line up to seven times during the evening or the night.

During those phone calls, the mother was intoxicated by alcohol and she was insulting the worker that answered the phone. It is also said that during those phone calls, the mother was disrespectful with the workers that were trying to help her. [ 25 ] According to what the father told the DYP, the mother consumed alcohol every day during that period of time. [ 26 ] On August 12, 2021, the DYP spoke with the mother again. During that conversation, she was explained the steps she had to take and the changes she had to make for her children to be returned under the parent’s care.

Of course, alcohol consumption was a central element of that conversation. However, that same night, the police intervened with the parents because of their state of intoxication and because of conjugal violence. [ 27 ] On August 20, 2021, the mother once again called the emergency line of the DYP, while intoxicated and stated that she did not want any help from them. [ 28 ] On September 9, 2021, the mother contacted the DYP office in the middle of the afternoon. During that call, while highly intoxicated, the mother threaten to beat up the foster family that was taking care of two of the child siblings.

Later on that day, when the DYP worker went to the foster home to pick up the children, the foster family informed them that the mother, who was still clearly intoxicated, had called many times during the evening to harass them. [ 29 ] Later that same day, the mother expressed suicidal thoughts and she was brought to the hospital by a social services worker, with the help of the police. During the risk assessment evaluation, the mother admitted that she will drink all night again after being released from the hospital. [ 30 ] In

summary, the evidence presented to the Court established a long list of events involving the mother being intoxicated and having inappropriate behaviours and of the father also being intoxicated and sometimes being violent towards the mother or the children. Those events, combined with the rest of the evidence, demonstrate that the parents are still struggling with an alcohol addiction, conjugal

violence and other personal issues. Furthermore, the mother did not collaborate with the DYP, refused the help that was offered to her and she is not currently taking much steps to improve her situation. [ 31 ] The mother does not admit her issues and therefore, she does not want to work on them. She had suicidal thoughts and she seems to have difficulty to manage her emotions and her anger. [ 32 ] The mother testified at the hearing. [ 33 ] She first admitted, when it was suggested to her, that she could be suffering from a depression.

However, she could not elaborate on the subject and she did not think that she needs to see a psychologist. [ 34 ] She said that she doesn’t know how she could improve her situation and when she was asked to comment about her alcohol consumption, her only answer was that “it is better”. [ 35 ] Furthermore, apart from generally denying the conjugal violence, she remains quite vague on that subject. [ 36 ] When her lawyer asked her what kind of help she would need to improve her situation, she answered that she did not really know. [ 37 ] In cross-examination, she confirmed that she recently told the DYP worker that she agreed with the measures proposed for the children, but she could not explain why she changed her mind just before the hearing. [ 38 ] The mother also said that she does not believe her children when they say that they are victim of violence from the father. [ 39 ] In

summary, the testimony of the mother was very limited, and mostly vague on many subjects. Clearly, such a testimony do not contradict the evidence presented by the DYP to support their demand and to justify the measures that they are proposing. [ 40 ] Concerning the father of the child, his collaboration was qualified as good and he is involved in the life of his children, including the tree oldest that are not his.

He made himself available for meetings, asks for visits with the children and he was present during those visits and he collaborated. [ 41 ] Furthermore, the DYP have been informed that the father started a follow-up for people struggling with an addiction.

Contrary to the mother, the father, who is identified as the person who have been violent with the children, have been taking concrete steps to improve his situation and to maintain a bond with the children. [ 42 ] That being said, even if the father recognized certain issues and took steps to improve the situation, it is still worrisome that he denies any form of violence toward the children. [ 43 ] To illustrate the fragility of the father’s recent sobriety, the Court wish to point out that since about a month ago, alcohol is no longer sold in the village.

When he was asked in cross-examination what he intend to do to maintain his sobriety when alcohol will become available again for purchase, he answered that “he will do his best and try to visit friends that hopefully are going to be sober”. This indicates that the father will need time to consolidate and to maintain his sobriety.

Violence on the children [ 44 ] On the question of the allegations of violence toward the children, the Court finds the evidence presented by the DYP quite convincing. [ 45 ] The Court will not review in details every gestures of violence established by the evidence, nor the particular specific circumstances and elements of confirmation that proves that those events took place. [ 46 ] But the DYP has clearly established that on numerous occasions, the father committed gestures of violence toward the children.

Since the family is composed of children of different ages, all of them, except maybe the three youngest, have either been victim of violence or witness such violence on their siblings.

Furthermore, the testimony of the children that were old enough to provide one, were collected by specialized investigators from the Sureté du Québec, during non-suggestive interviews. [ 47 ] The Court also wish to point out that some of the children expressed that they were afraid to go back home and that according to their perception, the mother was aware of the physical abuse done by the father. [ 48 ] Consequently, even if the father offered a general denial of those numerous gestures of violence toward the children, the Court concludes, from all the evidence, that the children were indeed subject to physical abuse as it is alleged by the DYP.

Analysis [ 49 ] From a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child is currently endangered by the behaviour of the parents. [ 50 ] The father have recognized some of his issues and took steps to address them.

His mobilization is still recent and time will tell us if he is able to maintain his sobriety and if he is capable of changing his life for the better. [ 51 ] As for the mother, she will first need to recognize her issues before being able to start addressing them. [ 52 ] The Court acknowledges that the mother loves her children very much and hope that she will take the necessary steps, rapidly, to solve her alcohol addiction and her other personal issues.

[ 53 ] If the parents do mobilize themselves and change their life for the better, a gradual integration with them will be possible in the future. But until then, the child needs a stable environment, exempt of violence and alcohol. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 54 ] GRANTS the application; [ 55 ] REVISES the decision rendered on April 23, 2021; [ 56 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger regarding

section 38 e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 58 ] AUTHORIZES the gradual reintegration of the child into the parent’s care if the situation allows it; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child are in danger; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 62 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child’s mother receive specific health care and health services, including psychological assessment; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the child’s presence; [ 64 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and the child’s parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with regards to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 65 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family for a period of one year; [ 66 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 67 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 68 ] THE WHOLE for one year.

Signed on March 28, 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 Me Angèle Tommasel Me Angèle Tommasel, avocate Counsel for the mother B Personally Father Date of hearing: February 1, 2022