2019 QCCQ 19540, 2019 QCCQ 19540

Protection de la jeunesse — 197974 2019 QCCQ 19540 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34683-185 Date: September 13, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a fourteen year-old adolescent, based on the serious risk of neglect, psychological ill-treatment and serious risk of physical abuse to which she is exposed. [ 2 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated November 6, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. from July 4, 2014 until January 14, 2015, the Honorable Judge Taya Di Pietro declared that the child’s security and development were deemed endangered due to the father using unreasonable methods of upbringing as it appears more fully from the judgement; 3.2. on September 10, 2018, the Honorable Judge Taya Di Pietro declared that the child’s sibling Y’s security and development were deemed endangered due to the child being the victim of bodily injury by the mother and due to psychological ill-treatment as it appears more fully from the proces-verbal; 3.3. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of Mr.

B and Ms. C, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) Mr. B and Ms. C have at times a conflictual relationship;

b) they regularly argue in the child’s presence;

c) at times those arguments escalate into physical violence;

d) on August 23, 2018, an argument between Mr. B and Ms. C (sic) escalated into physical violence and police intervention was needed;

e) following said incident, both Mr. B and Ms. C were arrested;

f) Ms. C has pending charges for assault with a weapon and she has conditions of no contact with Mr. B;

g) Mr. B and Ms. C minimize said incidents of violence and their impact on the children;

3.4. there is a serious risk that Mr. B and Ms.

C do not meet the child’s basic needs in that they can behave in an erratic, aggressive and unstable way with each other, even when the children are present; 3.5. the mother resides in [Country A] and she has minimal contacts with the child (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to her father, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The adolescent's mother lives in [Country A] and the adolescent has had little contact with her since she left [Country A] in 2013 to accompany her father to Canada.

Consequently, the Court proceeded in the mother’s absence. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, denied most of the allegations in the application, opposed the measures and requested that the file be closed. [ 7 ] The adolescent, represented by Me Stah, ignored most of the allegations and indicated that she felt no need for any services from the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] In

summary, the adolescent’s situation was signalled to the Director of Youth Protection following an argument between her father and her step-mother on August 23, 2018, when police were called to the home. The adolescent was then sent to live with her paternal aunt. [ 9 ] The parties objected to the filing of the police report regarding the incident as it was incomplete and the officers were not available for cross examination.

The police report is therefore disregarded. [ 10 ] However, when interviewed about the incident the adolescent: Acknowledged that on the evening of August 23, 2018 an argument ensued between Ms. C (sic) and her father Mr. B. X described the argument as heated and shared that objects were thrown by Ms. C onto Mr. B. X specified that Ms. C (sic) had thrown a fan at Mr.

B and that all the children in the home were exposed to what had happened. [1] [ 11 ] In addition, interviews with the other children in the family confirm that the parents were arguing, there was loud yelling and items were thrown. [ 12 ] None of the children interviewed referred to the adolescent’s step-mother’s injuries but: Ms. C specified that the cut and blackness under her right eye was a result of a punch she had received from Mr. B. [2] [ 13 ] Although the gravity of the incident is undeniable, there is no evidence of any incident of conjugal violence after August 2018.

The couple is divorced, and no longer lives together. [ 14 ] The adolescent is described as follows: X is a 13 year old female girl with no apparent health issues. She has been observed as a quite articulate and intelligent adolescent who speaks predominantly French and [language A]. She shares a close relationship with her half-sibling as well as step-sibling and step-mother. Conversely, she appears to share a detached and reserved relationship with her father.

X usually assists her family with household responsibilities, specifically the household chores. [3] [ 15 ] In the addendum to the Court Report dated February 19, 2019, there are no other concerns or issues reported regarding her situation: The caseworker spoke with school staff at École secondaire A where X attends school. The caseworker was informed that attends school regularly and if she is absent, her father, Mr. B will send an explanation in her agenda. X is doing well academically, participates in class and is described as having a big personality. The caseworker met with X on January 18, 2019 at school.

X informed that she resides with her father, Mr. B and that she seldom goes to Ms. C’s home. X stated that her father is home with her and does not sleep at Ms. C’s home. She informed that although she and [her step-sister] are close in age they do not have close relationship. X informed that she does not speak to her mother in [Country A] often, however she enjoys living in Town A with her father and she is happy to be with him. [4] Moreover, The older children confirm that Mr.

B does not sleep in the home or spend long durations there. [5] [ 16 ] There is no evidence of neglect or risk of neglect regarding the adolescent, no indication that her basic needs have not been met. [ 17 ] Moreover, there is no evidence of ongoing conflict between the adolescent and her father. [ 18 ] Although there have been incidents of physical abuse by the adolescent’s step-mother towards her step-sibling who is in placement, as well as fear of physical discipline regarding her younger half-sibling, a serious risk of physical abuse cannot be inferred in the adolescent’s case. [ 19 ] The evidence does establish that her step-mother became overwhelmed by her son’s behavior in the past and responded inappropriately.

The physical abuse in his case was admitted. However, the evidence establishes that he presents particular challenges, including having been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that any parallels can be drawn or inferred between the dynamic between the step-mother and her son and the adolescent’s situation.

[ 20 ] There was also evidence of fear of physical abuse regarding her younger half-brother. However, he also presents his own challenges and there is no indication of any real similarities in their situations, especially since the adolescent is no longer living with Ms. C. [ 21 ] Finally, there was a more recent incident raised by the Director of Youth Protection involving the adolescent’s step-brother. However, she was not even present in the home at the time. [ 22 ] The adolescent’s step-brother was placed in a group home in May 2018.

On November 20, 2018, his security and development were declared to be endangered based in the psychological ill-treatment and physical abuse to which he was exposed. He remains in placement.

On May 20, 2019, he was home for a visit and became aggressive. [ 23 ] According to the testimony of the educator who was present at the time, the step-mother responded appropriately by removing the other children from the situation and having them call for help. [ 24 ] For all these reasons, given the relatively low degree of vulnerability of the adolescent because of her age, given that she does not present any particular behavioral challenges, given that there are no reported incidents of conjugal violence to which she may have been exposed since August 2018, and finally given the uncontradicted evidence that she is doing well in her father’s care, the Court concludes that the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the adolescent’s situation is endangered under any of the alleged grounds of the Youth Protection Act .

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 25 ] DISMISSES the application. Signed on September 13, 2019 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Lilian Stah Attorney for the adolescent Hearing dates: February 28 and July 16, 2019. TD/vl