2015 QCCQ 17653, 2015 QCCQ 17653

Protection de la jeunesse — 155600 2015 QCCQ 17653 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000392-150 DATE: August 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], authorized person by the DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2008 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 or development of the child is in danger, because of her exposition to domestic violence and educational neglect. Her brothers are aimed by the same request. The parties agree to present common evidence. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and assisted by a lawyer. The father is present but unrepresented.

The parents generally admit the facts; they both agree to the measures proposed by DYP, and the deposit of the report to value the testimony of their author. [ 3 ] The child is not present but duly represented, and they also agree with the facts, and the conclusions suggested. The filing of the report to value the testimony of their author is also admitted. [ 4 ] On August 5 th , 2014, the DYP had to intervene in the family. An agreement on voluntary measures was taken in regard to all the children within the household until June 30, 2015.

At that time, a situation of conjugal violence was going on between the parents. Moreover, both parents had used inappropriate methods of punishments but did not mean to hurt their children. However, the parents agree to correct the situation with the help of DYP, and a few objectives were imposed upon the parents in order to resolve the problems. [ 5 ] On June 25, 2015, an urgent measure was applied, and the children were entrusted to the mother, who at the time, was living in a woman’s shelter. On June 26, a provisional measure intervenes, entrusting the children to the mother until August 31, 2015.

From July 23, 2015 until August 5, 2015, the children stayed with the father because the mother needed a little respite. [ 6 ] The parents fight and yell at each other a lot. The children are exposed to domestic violence regularly. Both parents admit they are at the same time victim and author of this violence between them. Even with the help of the service and the collaboration of this past year, the situation of violence is still present between the parents, and the children are direct witnesses of that state.

Basically, the situation of conjugal violence is recurrent and chronic, as mentioned in the psychosocial report dated July 22, 2015. [ 7 ] The children and the parents, all love each other. There’s a good relationship between them. Even if the parents have difficulties regarding parental capacity and authority, they do better when the other parent is not around. [ 8 ] The child is seven years old. He states that his parents fight, yell and hit each other; it makes him scared and sad. On June 2, 2015, a suicide protocol was applied to the child because he was saying that he wanted to kill himself.

He talks a lot about violence, and

he likes to break things. He mentions that he doesn’t have anyone to confide in. He does not seem like a happy child, and he has a low self-esteem. He does not sleep well, so when he attends school, he is very tired from lack of sleep. [ 9 ] The parents are not currently living together. The father wishes to receive some help. Concerning the mother, she also requests help for her mental health issue. She attends her monthly appointment with her social worker, and she takes her medication. The parents collaborate well with the services. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, the petition is well founded.

The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the petition for protection; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to both parents, excluding the other one and that the modality of the stays with each parent takes place upon agreement between the parties, and the DYP; [ 14 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues her personal follow up and procedures to stabilize her situation; [ 15 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undertakes personal aid request and follow-up concerning his violence issues; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from services offered by a specialized educator, for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 17 ] ORDERS that both parents benefit from a complete parental capacities assessment; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents not use or demonstrate any violence in presence of the child; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents don’t denigrate each other in the presence of the child; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents don’t use their child as the messenger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in all measures in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until August 30, 2016; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith for the petitioner Me Richard Lavigne for the child Me Hugo Caissy for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: August 3, 2015 Written judgment filed on August 21, 2015