2013 QCCQ 8558, 2013 QCCQ 8558

Protection de la jeunesse — 131471 2013 QCCQ 8558 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001540-126 640-41-001541-124 DATE: April 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born […] , 2001 Y, born […] , 2000 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A Applicant E , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A Mother and F , residing and domiciled in Town B, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 75, Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This written judgment follows the verbal statement given by this Court at the end of the audience of February 12, 2013. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes two applications to have the security and development of Y, born […], 2000 and X , born, […] 2001 declared in danger due to parental's serious risk of negligence as defined in

section 38 b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act as well as due to conjugal violence (the mother with her spouse) pursuant to

section 38

c) of the same act. [ 3 ] If the Court declares that the children's situation is compromised, the applicant requests that Y be entrusted to his father for a period of 12 months ant that X be entrusted to her paternal grandmother for the same period. [ 4 ] All the parties agree to proceed in both applications in the same hearing. [ 5 ] Both children are present and represented by Me Yan Massé. The mother is present and represented by Me Claude Beaudet. The father is present and represented by Me Ratha Heang. [ 6 ] The children and the father's lawyers admit that the situation of the children is in danger according to sections 38 b) 2° and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act (serious risk of negligence and psychological ill treatment to wit exposure to domestic violence). [ 7 ] The mother denies that her children's security or development is in danger. [ 8 ] Considering all the evidence the Court is of the opinion that there is preponderant evidence of the following facts. [ 9 ] The mother and the father are separated. The mother has seven children. She is their main caregiver. Mr F is the father of the oldest child Y who is 12 years old and of X who is 11 years old.

Mr F lives in Town B. [ 10 ] The mother lives in Town A with a spouse who is the father of the five other children. [ 11 ] The seven children's situation has been reported many times to the Director of Youth Protection because of the mother and her spouse's drinking. Because of their addiction their relationship is unstable and sometimes violent. [ 12 ] From February to December 2012 many incidents occurred in that family. Those situations were reported to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] On February 5, the mother and her spouse were intoxicated and they were fighting while the children were in the house.

All the children were placed in different homes (including the grandmother maternal's home and a aunt). [ 14 ] July 1 st , the mother left all her children at home unattended. She was intoxicated by alcohol. The children were placed with someone from the immediate family. The mother admitted the facts to the Youth Protection worker. She explained that she was fed up

with her spouse who has been heavily drinking since many days and that she decided to drink too. [ 15 ] July 21, the mother was out drinking and she left all her children alone. Someone was passed out in the basement of the family's house. [ 16 ] The mother admitted the facts to the Youth Protection worker. She and her spouse were both drinking and she had been beaten up by him. The mother said there was a babysitter in the house but the emergency worker who came that day was unable to wake him up.

The children told the Youth Protection worker that their mother had been out for two days. [ 17 ] September 2, the mother and her spouse were drinking. During the night the maternal grandmother came to babysit the children knowing the spouse had left them unattended. On September 4, the mother agreed to sign voluntary measures. In those measures, the children had to remain with their parents. The parents were not supposed to leave them unattended.

Also the parents had to refrain from consuming alcohol and drug. [ 18 ] On November 4, the mother and her spouse were intoxicated and partying while all the children were in the house. The children were placed in their different grandparents places. [ 19 ] On November 17, the mother and her spouse were out drinking while the children were at home unattended. [ 20 ] On November 19, the mother and her spouse signed a provisional agreement in order to allow the Youth Protection to proceed to a 30 days evaluation. [ 21 ] December 3, the emergency worker noticed during a home visit bruises on the mother's arm.

She had also a black eye. [ 22 ] On December 13, the Court ordered the provisional care of Y in a foster family for 30 days and extended the measure until February 11, 2013. [ 23 ] On the same date, the Court entrusted X to her father until February 11, 2013. [ 24 ] All the other children, Z, A, B, C and D were entrusted to a foster family for 30 days and the measure was extended until February 11, 2013. [ 25 ] During Christmas time the mother went to see the Youth Protection service. She wanted to have all her children back with her. Mrs [Social Worker 1] was absent.

The Youth Protection worker who was there gave the children back (except

X) to the mother despite the Court order. [ 26 ] From December 21, 2012 to January 18, 2013 the children were with the mother. [ 27 ] According to Mrs [Social Worker 1]'s testimony that person was unaware of the Court order. It was a mistake. [ 28 ] On January 19, 2013 most of the children were back in a foster family (Mrs [Social Worker 1] was back and tried to correct the situation). [ 29 ] On January 23, 2013 the mother and her spouse were drinking in their home. The children were already in a foster family.

The mother was beaten up by her spouse and brought to the hospital. [ 30 ] On January 24, the spouse was detained and charged for assault. On February 1 st , he was released under conditions. [ 31 ] On February 3, the father came for a visit. X was with him. Y left A with his father and X. Y wanted to go to Town B. The Youth Protection service was unaware of that situation. The mother [ 32 ] The mother and her spouse G have been known to each other for nine years. Both came from an alcoholic family.

Their relationship has been unstable because of drinking and violence issues. [ 33 ] They receive children's family allowance and income security program. [ 34 ] Since February 22, 2012 the parents and children were living in a house own by the [nation A]. [ 35 ] There has been always an ongoing situation between the mother and her spouse about the house lease. They are both on the lease and the spouse asked the mother many times to leave the place. [ 36 ] Since the incident of January 23, the house doors are boarded up because of a decision from the [Housing Department A].

This decision was taken because of several reports stating that alcohol related parties and conjugal violence occurred in that house. [ 37 ] The mother will have to go to the Housing to have her house back. [ 38 ] The mother says that she is sober for one week and that she has been sober for nearly five years until February 2012. At that time she was living with her parents. She denies having any alcohol addiction. She says she can stop drinking by herself. [ 39 ] In February 2012, she had her own house and the situation deteriorated. Also her spouse was drinking. [ 40 ] She says that their relationship is over.

This is not the first time that it happened. For now the spouse is not in the community. He left for a walk for Idle no more.

[ 41 ] On January 31, the mother asked from the social services some help for herself. This is the first time. The father [ 42 ] F is the father of both children. He lives with a spouse in Town B and has a stable relationship. They don't drink alcohol anymore and have led a sober life for a year now. [ 43 ] They have a house and their home is clean and tidy. [ 44 ] The father works as a security officer for the Town B. The decision [ 45 ] The Court considered that there is preponderant evidence that the security and development of Y born on [...], 2000 and X, born on [...], 2001 are in danger according to sections 38 b) 2° and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 46 ] Many incidents involving alcohol and violence occurred between the mother and her spouse while the children were present. The children were left unattended on many occasions despite the fact that the mother signed in September voluntary measures stating that she will take the necessary steps to correct the situation. [ 47 ] The mother and her spouse have alcohol related issues that are unresolved. They have to seek help for themselves.

The measures [ 48 ] The applicant asks the Court to entrust X to her paternal grandmother until the father's house is ready and this order has to be for a period of 12 months. [ 49 ] The father is in a process to get a bigger house to take the children with him. [ 50 ] Concerning Y the applicant asks the Court to entrust the child to his father for a period of 12 months. [ 51 ] The mother asks the Court to entrust the children with her.

She doesn't have a house but she lives with her mother and her youngest child Z. [ 52 ] The father agrees with the applicant's recommendations and is ready to take the children with him. [ 53 ] As for X she wants to stay with her father. [ 54 ] Given the evidence including the testimonies the Court considers that the children cannot return with their mother now. As the Court already states the mother is facing many personal issues that are unresolved.

She is not ready to have her children back with her. [ 55 ] The Court is also very concerned and shocked at the way the Youth Protection worked in this particular situation. [ 56 ] The evidence shows that the Director of Youth Protection didn't respect the Court order issued in December 2012. The children suffered from that situation. First they were placed in a foster home and then were removed from that place to go with their mother.

Then after a month they were back again in a foster home. [ 57 ] This situation is completely unacceptable and the Director of Youth Protection is accountable for it. [ 58 ] Given the evidence the Court concludes that the applicant recommendations are reasonable and in the children's best interest. For these reasons the Court: [ 59 ] Grants both petitions; [ 60 ] Declares that the security or development of Y born on [...], 2000 and X, born on [...], 2001 are in danger according to sections 38 b) 2° and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 61 ] Entrusts the child Y to his father for a period of 12 months. [ 62 ] Entrusts the child X to her paternal grandmother until her father's house is ready for a period of 12 months; [ 63 ] Orders that the contacts between the children and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection, notably regarding the modalities, the frequency and the length; [ 64 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the parents for a period of 12 months; [ 65 ] Orders that the children attend school on a regular base; [ 66 ] Orders the father to take the necessary steps in order that his son can attend school in B; [ 67 ] Orders that the parents remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 68 ] Orders that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 69 ] Orders the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 70 ] Entrusts the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q. Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Yan Massé, attorney for the children Me Claude Beaudet, attorney for the mother Me Ratha Heang, attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 12, 2013