2019 QCCQ 19763, 2019 QCCQ 19763

Protection de la jeunesse — 198158 2019 QCCQ 19763 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 000975-190 DATE: September 26, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2015 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 September 26, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that a serious risk exists that the child is victim of sexual abuse. [ 3 ] Today, the Director amended its application to recommend that the child be entrusted to the mother’s care instead of maintaining her placed in a foster family.

The Director also recommends that support measures be ordered until September 30, 2020. [ 4 ] The mother is in agreement with the amended recommendations. [ 5 ] The father is absent from the hearing. [ 6 ] The child’s attorney submit that, considering the mother’s history, the child’s reintegration to the mother’s care would be premature. She recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of four months. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The child’s parents are separated.

The child lived with her sister, her mother and her mother’s boyfriend. The mother reports that the father has regular contacts with the child but that he is not otherwise very involved. [ 9 ] On March 8, 2019, the Director retained a signalement to the effect that a serious risk of sexual abuse existed. [ 10 ] The child attends daycare.

[ 11 ] Y (the child’s sibling), age 5, reported that her genital and butt areas were hurting. She mentioned that “ I get touched here at night ” (pointing to her genital areas). She mentioned that she was not touched “ here ” (pointing to her posterior area). She was not able to name the person who was touching her. [ 12 ] Y was medically evaluated. No evidence was found that could support that she was sexually abused. [ 13 ] During the summer of 2018, the mother started dating Mr. C. In the past, Mr. C, was found guilty of sexual abuse.

Several of his victims were minors at the time of the abuse. [ 14 ] On March 8, 2019, the mother got detained following a breach of her conditional sentence. [ 15 ] During the evaluation the mother reported that she knew about the past accusations against her boyfriend. He mentioned that he had changed and she described him in a positive way. She assured the Youth Protection worker that she had never left the children alone with Mr. C. Even if Mr.

C sleeps in her home, she has not been able to acknowledge any potential risk for the children. [ 16 ] The father has been collaborating with the Youth Protection worker. During the investigation he reported to the Director that he knew about the criminal past of Mr. C. He was of the opinion that Mr. C would not commit any sexual acts against his two girls. He considered that the mother was taking good care of the children. [ 17 ] During the signalement’s evaluation, the child and her sister were entrusted to their maternal grandmother, Ms.

D. [ 18 ] On March 12, 2019, the mother was released from detention and went to the maternal grandmother’s place to take her children back to her care. [ 19 ] On March 13, 2019, the Youth Protection worker went to the mother’s residence. The children were there as well as Mr. C. The children did not seem to react negatively to his presence. During the meeting, the mother opened up regarding her relationship with Mr. C. He admitted to her that he committed sexual assaults in the past. [ 20 ] When the Youth Protection worker met with Mr. C, he admitted that, in the past, he had committed sexual assaults.

Since then, he did not feel the need to receive any support regarding this aspect of his past. [ 21 ] On the same day, the parents signed a Provisional Agreement forbidding the children to be in presence of Mr. C without the mother also being present. [ 22 ] On May 17, 2019, the mother reported that she was separated from Mr. C. She requested that the Youth Protection file be closed. The parties agreed nonetheless to convene to a short-term intervention with the Director. The mother agreed to inform the Youth Protection worker if she was to reunite with Mr.

C. [ 23 ] On June 17, 2019, the Youth Protection worker learned that the mother and Mr. C had reunited. The mother and Mr. C confirmed this information. The mother was clear with the Youth Protection worker and her manager that she did not consider that her children were at risk from Mr. C. [ 24 ] On August 10, 2019, during a meeting with the Youth Protection worker, the mother reported that she had broken up with Mr. C the day before. [ 25 ] On August 23, 2019, during an unannounced visit to the mother’s home, the Youth Protection worker saw Mr.

C leave the family home and get in the car, alone with Y, in order to bring her to school. [ 26 ] The mother was asked to come to the Youth Protection office. She confirmed that she had reunited with Mr. C the day before and that he had reintegrated the family house. She accused the Youth Protection worker of trying to break her relationship and stormed out of the office. [ 27 ] The children were eventually entrusted to their grandmother. [ 28 ] On August 27, 2019, the mother met with the Youth Protection worker.

She reported that she had changed her mind that that she was choosing her daughters over her relationship with Mr. C. She explained that she had broken up her relationship on August 23, following her meeting with the Director. [ 29 ] During her testimony, the Youth Protection worker explained that during that meeting, the mother presented herself with a different non-verbal attitude. She felt that the mother finally really understood her need to protect her daughters; that she was not just compliant.

She saw a change of heart in the mother. [ 30 ] The Youth Protection worker went for two unannounced visits at the mother’s house and did not find any sign of Mr. C. The Youth Protection manager also passed in front of the house on a daily basis. The Youth Protection worker reassured the Tribunal that she could put in place a frequent social follow-up with the mother, with unannounced visits at the home. [ 31 ] During her testimony, the mother confirmed that she ended her relationship on August 23, 2019 and her intentions not to reunite with Mr. C.

She explained that he would constitute a danger of rape for his daughters. She promised to call the police if he presented himself to the home and refused to leave. She explained that it would be too much of a risk for her daughters if he was around. There would also be a risk that the children be placed one more time. [ 32 ] As for the serious risk of sexual abuse, the Tribunal needs to assess the evidence presented in a global way. Y’s statement, combined with Mr.

C admitted past sexual assaults (some victims being minor at the time of the assault), added with his recognition that he never received any treatment for this important issue brings the Tribunal to conclude that a serious risk of sexual abuse has been proven, in a preponderant manner.

[ 33 ] At the time of the writing of the report, it was clear that the mother was not transparent with the Youth Protection worker and that she was prioritizing her need to be in a relationship over the needs of her daughters to be protected. [ 34 ] Since August 27, 2019, the mother convinced the Youth Protection worker of her change of heart. [ 35 ] The Youth Protection worker’s testimony convinced the Tribunal of the possibility to return the child to the mother’s care. Hopefully, the mother really understood the importance for her to play a protective role in her daughter’s life.

The Tribunal is also reassured by the close safety net that will be put in place to support the family. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that there be no contact between the child and Mr.

C; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to put an end to the situation of compromission; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the ordered measures; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection of their current situation; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits at the home; [ 44 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection will do frequent meetings with the mother; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2020; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on October 31, 2019 /cd Mtre Geneviève Apollon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mrs. Laurence Migué Counsel for the child Mtre Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 26, 2019