2015 QCCQ 19688, 2015 QCCQ 19688

Protection de la jeunesse — 157049 2015 QCCQ 19688 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029830-155 DATE : October 22, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2002 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on October 22 nd , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of the situation of the child alleging that her security and development are compromised due to negligence, risk of negligence as well as psychological ill-treatment (child exposed to the conflicts of the parents).

After a period of entrustment of the child to her uncle, the Director is asking that the child be entrusted to the care of her parents and that youth protective measures be ordered for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The father recognizes essentially all the facts alleged in support of the motion. The child has not received, from her parents, appropriate supervision or support as she has failed her school year. The child has been exposed to conflicts opposing her parents and has therefore suffered from the situation.

The father welcomes the intervention of the Director although he is not in favour to participate with the Family Preservation Program for the time being. [ 4 ] Although the mother admits some of the facts alleged in support of the motion (child failing school, episodes of conjugal violence related to alcohol consumption and ongoing alcohol abuse issues for both parents) she denies, to some extent, that the child has been exposed to their conflicts. Nonetheless, she agrees with the conclusions sought by the Director except her participation in the Family

Preservation Program. [ 5 ] On behalf of the child, her lawyer admits the essential facts alleged in support of the motion: she has failed her school year, her parents have a recurring alcohol abuse problem and she has been exposed to numerous incidents of conjugal or domestic violence. The child voices the importance of the involvement of the Director so that her parents can settle, once and for all, their issues.

CONTEXT [ 6 ] In May 2015, the Director receives a signalement concerning the child pertaining to an incident of conjugal violence that would have taken place on the 5 th of May. [ 7 ] The evaluation of the signalement reveals that on May 5 th , police officers intervened at the family residence following a dispute between the parents. [ 8 ] The child confirms that her parents often argue, in Créole, and that she cannot understand their disputes. The child adds that her parents need help to stop drinking. She is concerned about her parents' drinking.

The child states that when people drink, "they yell at each other, say mean things and people's feelings get hurt". [ 9 ] The child admits not having provided her parents with school documents since November 2014. It is her brother who has signed tracers for missed assignments and behavioural misconduct. The child hid information from her parents, did not reveal she was having issues at school as she feared they would fight about it. The child failed her school year. [ 10 ] The mother minimized, for quite some time, the impact of her drinking on the child.

She has been defensive when discussing her drinking and stated that it had no impact on her parenting. As to her relationship with the father, it has been difficult for the mother to be forthcoming. She recanted the information given to the police officers following the parents' dispute of May 5 th , 2015. While the father was imposed the condition not to be at the family residence, it appears that he was back home within days of his undertaking. The mother hid this crucial information from the Director. [ 11 ] The father offered his collaboration from the very beginning of the involvement of the Director.

He readily recognized the drinking problem of both parents and its impact on the child. [ 12 ] He made a reference to a similar incident that occurred in 2002. Surprisingly, the mother does not recall that incident.

On the two occasions, it seems that the mother has made false accusations against the father, claiming that he was violent with her when if fact, she was mad at him. [ 13 ] Following his arrest in relation to the incident of May 5 th , 2015, the father attempted to live away from the home but returned back to the home after the mother has given him permission to do so, despite his undertaking prohibiting him from being at the family residence. [ 14 ] On June 10 th , 2015, on a provisional basis, the child was entrusted to the care of her paternal uncle.

It was expected that the parents would address their personal and couple issues in order for the child to be returned to their care. [ 15 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry on October 22 nd , 2015, both parents are willing to follow the recommendations of the Director and respect the conditions imposed. [ 16 ] The mother has started individual counselling sessions and has become much more insightful pertaining to her personal issues as well as issues that have led to the involvement of the Director.

The father has now realized the importance of seeking and getting help for his drinking and personal relationship issues. The parents will soon start couple counselling. [ 17 ] Under these circumstances, it is felt that the child can safely be reintegrated home. [ 18 ] The Director has established the necessity to remain involved and provide services to the family. The measures recommended meet the needs of the child and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of the parents; [ 21 ] ORDERS that both parents collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS both parents to continue to receive the services they are currently receiving for as long as they need these services; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS for the parents to access the services that they need; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X continue to receive psychological services; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS to the parents to accept the services of the Family Preservation Program;

[ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her parents for a period of nine (9) months; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the adolescent Me Guy Luc Grondin Attorney for the mother Me Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the father Date of hearing : October 22nd, 2015