2013 QCCQ 14798, 2013 QCCQ 14798

Protection de la jeunesse — 134494 2013 QCCQ 14798 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF […] Youth Division DATE: July 11, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: Nos. 635-41-000526-134 X , born on […], 2007 635-41-000527-132 Y , born on […], 2003 635-41-000528-130 Z , born on […], 2001 635-41-000529-138 A , born on […], 1996 635-41-000530-136 B , born on […], 1997 ______________________________________________________________________ C AND D Parents and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents an amended motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act concerning five children: Y, 9 years old, X, 5 years old, Z, 12 years old, A, 17 years old, and B, 15 years old. ISSUES RAISED [ 2 ] The parents deny the situation of endangerment, and they want to have their five children back with them. [ 3 ] The Director recommends their placement in a foster home for one year. [ 4 ] The five children want to go back to their parents in Town A. THE FACTS [ 5 ] The youth protection services have been regularly involved with the family since 2003.

The father is 44, the mother 38. [ 6 ] In 2011 and 2012, the children were subjects of Court decisions. [ 7 ] The current file started with a report on April 9, concerning events of domestic violence.

The Director was provided with five occurrence reports by the police, concerning fights between the parents and aggressive behaviour in the presence of the children. [ 8 ] In April and at the beginning of May, the D.Y.P. worker from Village A visited the C family on a regular basis, being worried by the situation of the family. [ 9 ] On May 7, 2013, Renée Lemoine J. ordered provisional measures (s. 76.1), leaving the children with their parents but ordering strict measures of protection. [ 10 ] One week later, on May 14 and 15, the children disclosed many situations of physical abuse to the youth protection worker, concerning their parents. [ 11 ] On May 15, 2013, the Director took immediate protection measures.

The children were placed in a foster home. Police officers

were called on the scene, because of the parents’ aggressive behaviour. ANALYSIS [ 12 ] There was a lengthy hearing on May 28, 2013 in Village A concerning this case. [ 13 ] The parties were represented by lawyers: Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault for the Director, Mtre. Jacques Stuart for the children and Mtre.

Myriame Gaudreault for the father and the mother. [ 14 ] The Court heard the following witnesses: [Social Worker 1] for the Director, the two older children, A and B, and the parents. [ 15 ] The parents totally deny all the allegations and the information contained in the Evaluation and Orientation Report prepared by Mrs. [Social Worker 1] on May 24. [ 16 ] At the end of April and beginning of May 2013, the children disclosed a lot of information concerning their parents to the D.Y.P. workers: physical violence towards the children, aggressive behaviour, frequent lack of food in the house and the children’s fear of their father. [ 17 ] At the beginning of the hearing, all the children adopted the position of wanting to return to their parents.

At the hearing, the children had nothing to say. They preferred to forget or not to remember. This was obvious when A and B testified. [ 18 ] The applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], gave sound testimony. She explained why she had initially foreseen D.Y.P. intervention without removing the children from the home, before shifting to a recommendation for placement in a foster home. [ 19 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] noted many events, details and information gathered from different sources. She received reports. The Director made quite a few visits to the family’s home.

Some events, facts or information could be considered as not important, if taken separately.

But when we consider the entire evidence, when we put everything together, the situation of the children is clearly endangered. [ 20 ] Despite the efforts made by the parents to minimize the disclosures made by their children, these disclosures, made very recently, cannot be rejected simply because, on the day of the hearing, two of their children say that they do not remember their recent disclosures, made a few days or a few weeks earlier. [ 21 ] We must bear in mind that the parents seek more to protect their own notion of life, and that they do not cooperate with the D.Y.P.

Most of the time, they oppose the Director. They will do and say anything to remove him from their lives. [ 22 ] Since the parents wish that the D.Y.P. were out of their lives, they minimize and deny all the allegations of the D.Y.P. [ 23 ] The D.Y.P. workers did not find all the information in question by coincidence. It was obtained from the police station, the school, the C.L.S.C. and other sources.

All around this family, people worry about the security of the children, because of violence in their home, lack of money, lack of food, poor school attendance by the children, etc. [ 24 ] The following situations, which are detrimental to the children, were proven beyond the balance of probabilities. [ 25 ] The children are neglected: they frequently lack food, are hungry, have bad hygiene and lack supervision.

Their basic needs are not met. [ 26 ] The children have a very low school attendance; B, 15, did not attend school in 2012-2013. [ 27 ] The parents buy drugs and have undeniable gambling habits. [ 28 ] These bad choices have an effect on the difficult financial situation of the family: the lack of money is regular and obvious. The father even spoke on the community radio station to ask for food and money. [ 29 ] The parents completely deny physical altercations between themselves and they also deny the use of physical force with the children.

But before changing their attitude in order to protect their parents, most of the children had reported events of physical abuse against themselves. In those circumstances, there is at least a serious risk of the children of becoming the victims of physical abuse and unreasonable methods of upbringing (s. 38( e ), Y.P.A.). [ 30 ] The children are often left to themselves, unsupervised. The older daughter of 17 dates a man 34 years old. The 15 year old daughter is pregnant and continues to use drugs despite that fact. The third daughter had inappropriate sexual behaviour with a friend.

Also, a man tried to obtain sex from the second daughter, B, right in the home and in the presence of the father, in exchange for money or drugs. The children are at risk of being subjected to gestures of a sexual nature right in the home.

This is due to a lack of supervision, and the parents do not demonstrate that they are taking the necessary steps to prevent that situation. [ 31 ] One of the daughters sniffs gas; marijuana is regularly used in the family’s home. [ 32 ] The youth protection workers try to intervene with the parents in order to put an end to those situations, which are detrimental to their children, but the parents refuse to cooperate. [ 33 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1]’s report, in pages 3 to 9, lists numerous events, and she describes enough situations that are detrimental to the children for us to be able to declare that the security and development of the children are in danger. [ 34 ] Since the parents deny the situation and refuse to cooperate, the measures of protection for the children involve a placement in foster homes.

This is in the best interest of the children.

[ 35 ] Due to the seriousness of the endangerment, involving many situations of danger, the period of placement must be one year, which means, for the oldest of 17, a placement until majority. This period will give the parents time to reconsider their cooperation and to address their own issues. As the parents and the children love each other very much, they should take an active

part in the application of the measures in order to improve the situation of the children of this family. [ 36 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the amended motions. [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the five children are in danger, that of X, born on 2007-[…], Y, born on 2003-[…], Z, born on 2001-[…], A, born on 1996-[…], and B, born on 1997-[…]. [ 39 ] ORDERS the placement of A in a foster home, until her age of majority. [ 40 ] ORDERS the placement of the four other children in foster homes, for a period of one year, with a possibility of reintegration into their family, if the situation allows. [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS the placement of all the children in the same foster home, if possible. [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents report regularly to the Director, in person, to inform him of the current situation. [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS strongly that the parents take steps to resolve their personal issues. [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the children and their parents, to be supervised by the Director as to the terms and frequency. [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and to the parents, for a period of 24 months. [ 46 ] ORDERS that the police cooperate in the execution of this judgment. [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the five children to the Director of Youth Protection, for the application of the measures ordered. __________________________________ CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault Counsel for the parents Mtre. Jacques Stuart Counsel for the children Date of hearing: May 28, 2013