2018 QCCQ 14872, 2018 QCCQ 14872

Protection de la jeunesse — 185454 2018 QCCQ 14872 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000879-186 DATE: July 9, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant v.

A , residing and domiciled at […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 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 for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine ( ss. 11.2 , 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection of A (the Director) submitted an application before the Court for protection s. 38 of the Youth Protection Act ( Y.P.A .) concerning the situation of X, born on […], 2006. [ 2 ] The applicant submits that the security and development of the child are in danger within the meaning of ss. 38( b )(

i) and (iii), ( b )(2) and (

f) of the Y.P.A . THE EVIDENCE [ 3 ] The evidence shows that the child has very poor attendance at school. Apparently, she takes the bus in the morning but hangs out with untrustworthy teenagers. [ 4 ] Furthermore, the child is defies authority, is disrespectful and bullies other children when she is present at school. [ 5 ] The child, who is only 12 years old, has been involved in numerous situations where the police had to intervene. [ 6 ] On August 26, 2016, the Police Force (

A) of Town A received information about four minors who had been seen sniffing gas from motor vehicles on some occasions. One of the minors was X (10 years old at the time). The information was submitted to youth protection, since the security and development of those children were in danger. [ 7 ] On April 26, 2017, the [police] received a call from the principal of the school. He was asking for assistance for problematic students. The complaint was because they had spit on the window, were kicking the walls and doors, and did not want to leave the school.

Attempts to reach the parents were unsuccessful. [ 8 ] One of the children was X. The police officer went on to school and saw the child being very aggressive and disrespectful. He heard very loud screaming and objects being thrown in the counselor’s office. When the police officer tried to intervene, she was very disrespectful and aggressive toward him. The police officer helped the school authority remove her from the school. She reacted aggressively, kicking the wall and throwing stuff on the ground. [ 9 ] On May 4, 2017, the child was caught with two quantities of cannabis (2.03

g) on her at school. [ 10 ] On May 17, 2017, the police were called by the school principal because children had tried to break a window at the school. X was one of them. [ 11 ] On May 24, 2017, the child was entered private property without the consent of the owner. She was told to leave but refused

and laughed at the owner, who asked the police to intervene. Even with the intervention of the [police], the child was aggressive and unwilling to leave the house. The mother went to the police station and tried to speak with her daughter, but the latter was aggressive and yelled at her. [ 12 ] On May 30, 2017, the child was at the police station at around 1:00 a.m. They were hanging out on the stairs outside. Constable Boulet asked them to go somewhere else.

One of the children’s friends informed the police officer that one of their friends with them at the timehad suicidal thoughts. [ 13 ] On September 3, 2017, police were called because a group of girls tried to set fire to the dome over the swimming pool. The child was part of the group. [ 14 ] On September 5, 2017, a citizen called the police because the child was seen with three other girls. They were described as completely “high”. [ 15 ] On September 14, 2017, police were called about students who did not attend school and were causing a disturbance by knocking on the door and windows.

Again, the child was part of the group. The police escorted her home. [ 16 ] On September 19, 2017, the police intervened because a group of children were at the marina and sniffing gas. The child was present and aggressive toward the police officer. [ 17 ] Furthermore, the child was seen many times late at night in the community. The child and her parents received several notices from the police because she did not respect a community by-law concerning a curfew for children. [ 18 ] The mother admits that she has had substance abuse issues. She abused alcohol last summer.

The last time she was intoxicated was in October 2017. [ 19 ] As for the father, he is regularly absent from the community, but he cooperates with youth protection. [ 20 ] The mother’s cooperation is minimal. She has a tendency to deny or minimize the child’s behaviour. [ 21 ] The Court has no hesitation to declare that the security and development of the child are in danger because she displays serious behavioural disturbances and the parents are not able to control her ( s. 38 (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ). [ 22 ] The parents did not provide their daughter with appropriate supervision and failed to take the necessary steps to ensure her attendance at school. In fact, the evidence shows that between the ages of 10 and 12, this vulnerable little girl was left without proper supervision. She seriously endangered herself by sniffing gas and apparently nothing was done by the parents to exercise their parental authority.

The Court declares the security and development of the child in danger under s. 38 ( b )(1)(iii) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 23 ] The Court must denounce the fact that this young child should have been protected by the Director two years ago. [ 24 ] It is totally unacceptable to see a ten-year-old girl with such problematic behaviour without any legal intervention for a period of at least two years.

The child’s erratic behaviour and the lack of appropriate supervision at home was well known in the community and the situation was reported to the Director of Youth Protection many times. [ 25 ] The Court is not in a position to decide if the child’s right has been wronged under s. 91 in fine of the Youth Protection Act because that question was not debated at the hearing.

The Court has no evidence about the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection or referrals to other services before the present application. [ 26 ] Nevertheless, a thorough review of all the occurrence reports from the [police] shows that the child’s serious behavioural disturbance has been an ongoing situation since 2016. [ 27 ] The evidence shows that the security and development of the child are in danger because of a lack of supervision by the parents and the fact that they have failed to provide appropriate support and ensure the child’s schooling pursuant to s. 38( b )(iii) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 28 ] Obviously, the security and development of the child are also in danger given the child’s serious behavioural disturbances, and the parents are not able to put an end to the situation within the meaning of s. 38 ( f )of the Youth Protection Act . [ 29 ] Finally, the mother, who is the primary caregiver for the child, has struggled with personal issues such alcohol abuse, and that situation placed the child at risk of neglect, particularly in regard to the support and supervision that the child needs, given her age.

The Court declares that the security and development of the child are compromised under s. 38 ( b ) (2) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 30 ] The applicant’s recommendation is to keep the child with the parents, along with various measures to help them properly supervise their daughter. [ 31 ] The family’s situation has been different since the father has decided to be more involved with the children. The father is the provider for the family. He had to travel frequently for his work and he was not present at home.

He has decided to be more present for his family and he is very cooperative with the youth protection worker. [ 32 ] For the mother’s part, she has not consumed alcohol since October 2017. Her cooperation is mitigated because she is afraid that her children will be placed in foster home. She has a tendency to protect her daughter and minimize her misconduct. [ 33 ] The Court believes that it is possible to work with the parents to improve their parenting abilities. The presence of an external

educator to support the parents and give them tools to assume their parental responsibilities will be helpful. [ 34 ] Despite the poor supervision in the parental environment, the Court must emphasize that the parents have a very strong bond with the child, who will be a positive force to motivate all the members of the family. [ 35 ] Considering the vulnerability of the child and the significance of her behavioural disturbance, if there is no improvement in her situation, it will be necessary to review the situation without delay to avoid permanent damage, particularly in regard to the lack of schooling and sniffing gas.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS this application; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child X, born on […], 2006, is in danger; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child remain with her parents; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the 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 is in danger; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report in person to the director, at regular intervals, to inform him of the current situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents cooperate with the services provided by Youth Protection; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the mother seek help through Social Services for her personal issues; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a regular basis; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until May 31, 2019; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection pf A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2019. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.C.Q.

Mtre Cassandra Neptune Attorney for the child Mtre Genevieve Apollon Attorney for the applicant Mtre Angele Tommasel Attorney for the mother Mtre Marianne Léonard Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 24, 2018