r v. A AND B, 2014 QCCQ 18641

Protection de la jeunesse — 146799 2014 QCCQ 18641 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division DATE: November 25, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE P.

BIGUÉ J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : No. 615-41-001992-147 X , born on [...], 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CENTRE DE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A AND B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT on a motion for protection (section 38 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing 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 ] This is a motion seeking to have the security and development of a young child, X, only 14 months old at the time of the hearing, declared in danger. [ 2 ] Three parties were represented by counsel: Mtre. Valérie Martel for the petitioner, Mtre. Angèle Tommasel for the child, and Mtre. Mylène Grondin for the mother. The father was present and represented himself.

ISSUES RAISED [ 3 ] There is no dispute concerning the endangerment of the child’s security and development. [ 4 ] The main issue is whether the father will change his mind, as he has so far refused to accept the involvement of the Director of Youth Protection in his life. He has categorically refused to cooperate with the D.Y.P. [ 5 ] The father made no commitment concerning his future involvement with the child.

THE FACTS [ 6 ] Social services have been intervening, through voluntary measures and Court orders, with this family since July 2009 in regard to the situation of the child’s two siblings. [ 7 ] Over the years, the parents have had an unstable relationship, punctuated by conflicts and violence, both verbal and physical. [ 8 ] The parents’ last separation occurred in April 2014, following an episode of conjugal violence for which the mother pressed charges against the father. [ 9 ] The father did not cooperate in the social follow-up and he has not complied with the Court order that he be evaluated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and undergo anger management therapy. [ 10 ] The mother stated that she has not had a drink for a year and a half; however, she admitted consuming marijuana occasionally.

Before the child was born, she had struggled with alcohol and drug abuse for years. [ 11 ] The mother’s situation has improved but is still fragile.

[ 12 ] The mother has sometimes been overwhelmed and stressed, but she has been managing to give priority to the children’s basic needs, every day. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] The child is not in danger as long as he is living with his mother, especially since she has maintained relative sobriety since January 2013, and been actively involved in her various forms of follow-up. The child’s siblings have also been kept with her. [ 14 ] There was a risk of neglect when the child was in presence of his father, since Mr.

B never agreed to cooperate in his personal follow-up concerning substance abuse, impulsiveness and aggressiveness, and in his psychological follow-up. [ 15 ] The risk still exists whenever the father is in X’s presence for contact or visits, for the same reason. [ 16 ] The father has not resolved his personal problems.

He has never taken steps to comply with past Court orders. [ 17 ] The father testified clearly that he does not want to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection, not even in order to have contact with the child. [ 18 ] Despite the father’s position, contact with young X will be authorized for the father, but it will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection, even if the father does not agree to supervision.

If the father wants access to the child, contact will absolutely have to be supervised by the Director, and take place in presence of a third person. [ 19 ] The Court will provide an opportunity for the father to receive some aid, counsel and assistance in order to address his issues, if he changes his mind and asks for them. [ 20 ] The father will have to make a choice.

If he persists in his decision not to have contact with X because he does not want to cooperate with the Director, he will bear responsibility for that decision. [ 21 ] Because of such a decision by the father, the child will not get to know him, and will not create bonds with him. After a certain period, it will be too late. [ 22 ] As for the mother, she has the capacities required to keep X at her home; she will have to maintain her sobriety, remain separated from the father, and regularly see to her follow-up.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born[…], are in danger; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother and ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard and in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of the Youth Protection concerning the terms, the frequency and the presence of a third party, until the father successfully completes anger management therapy, and until he undergoes psychological and psychiatric evaluations; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the father undergo a psychological and psychiatric evaluation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father comply with the recommendations of the professionals conducting the different evaluations; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the father complete anger management therapy; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the father complete in-patient therapy regarding drugs and alcohol, if prescribed by the professionals conducting the different evaluations; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the father report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of his current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the Centre Jeunesse offer aid, counsel and assistance to the mother and the child until June 4, 2015, and to the father, but only if he requests it; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother engage in personal follow-up regarding drug and alcohol abuse until the professionals providing the services recommend otherwise; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain information from the professionals regarding the parents’ personal follow-up and the recommendations of the professionals, concerning their progress, cooperation and regular attendance; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the health care and health services required in his situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the police cooperate in the execution of this judgment;

[ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ CLAUDE P. BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. Mtre. Valérie Martel For the petitioner Mtre. Angèle Tommasel For the child Mtre. Mylène Grondin For the mother B, present and not represented Date of hearing: October 8, 2014