2012 QCCQ 4261, 2012 QCCQ 4261

Protection de la jeunesse — 12166 2012 QCCQ 4261 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-025329-111 525-41-025330-119 DATE: January 16, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […] , 1999 - and - Y Born on […], 2005 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 16, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the children declared compromised under

section 38 paragraphs b) 2) and

c) of the Youth Protection Act , as there is a serious risk that the parents are not providing for the children’s basic needs and that the children were exposed to conjugal violence. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The children are subjected to behaviour on the part of the parents that could cause them harm; • On November 1, 2011, the mother reported that the father is verbally abusive and physically aggressive towards her in the presence of the children and that this has gotten worse over the past few years; • On November 1, 2011, the mother reported that in 2010, she was badly injured and was off work for one year after the father pushed her down the stairs; • The children stated that the parents argue every day; • There are reasons to believe that the father may have a substance abuse problem, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . the mother stated that the father smokes marijuana and drinks alcohol every day; . the children confirm that the father drinks daily; . the father admits to regular use of marijuana;

• Information is to the effect that the father becomes more aggressive when he drinks, especially with his daughter who has special needs given her hearing disability; • Information is also to the effect that the father used physical discipline with his son in the last academic year; • On November 2, 2011, the mother went to reside temporarily at her mother’s home with the children, but she returned home on November 4, 2011; • On November 4, 2011, the father agreed to leave the home during the evaluation by the Director of Youth Protection; • Since November 4, 2011, the parents have been resistant to the delegate’s intervention and have not collaborated, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . the mother is minimizing the violence and stated that this is cultural; . the father said he only slapped the mother two times, a few weeks ago. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care, taking judicial notice that the father does not reside at the family home and ordering that the father can only reintegrate the family home if authorized by DYP, after consultation with the treating professionals. [ 5 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and agree with the recommended measures.

The mother is following a therapy with a counsellor from the Women’s Shelter. As for the father, he has started the Head Start program at Pavillon A and an anger management program with Mr. C from the Clinic A. The parents wish for the father to have extended contacts with his children and for the mother to be allowed to be present during these visits. [ 6 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by the DYP are in the children’s best interest.

As for the contacts with the children, the parents should accept that DYP supervise the contacts in order for the youth worker to assess the family dynamic. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of D, human relations’ agent, and read the reports and documents filed by DYP and the parents as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that the children have been exposed to conjugal violence and to their father's aggressive outbursts. Furthermore, the situation has been ongoing for some time.

The parents are taking steps to address their difficulties, but it was noted that the parents tend to minimize the situation and collaboration with DYP has, at times, been difficult. The father resented the youth worker having access to the information of the treating professionals or for the contacts with his children to be supervised by DYP. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their mother’s care at the exclusion of the father until such time that DYP authorizes the father to reintegrate the family home.

The children have the right to live in a stable home exempt of violence, with parents who respect each other.

It will be important for the parents to follow through with the recommendations made by the treating professionals in order for the family’s situation to improve. [ 9 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are compromised. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 12 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y ; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care, TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father does not reside at the family home and ORDERS that the father may only reintegrate the family home with the authorization of DYP, after consultation with the treating professionals; [ 14 ] ORDERS the father to inform DYP of his living arrangements; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary and that the contacts be encouraged; [ 16 ] ORDERS that a minimum of two contacts be supervised by DYP with the mother being present; [ 17 ] ORDERS that it is for DYP to decide if it is appropriate for the mother to be present during the contacts supervised by a third party; [ 18 ] ORDERS the parents to refrain from any aggression in the presence of the children; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother address her personal difficulties and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother is following a therapy; [ 21 ] ORDERS the father to address his personal difficulties and to participate in an anger management program and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father is following an anger management program;

[ 22 ] ORDERS the father to follow through on the recommendations of the substance abuse assessment; [ 23 ] ORDERS the father to submit to random alcohol testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent to submit to random alcohol testing; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to refrain from consuming alcohol or being under the influence in front of the children; [ 25 ] ORDERS that DYP be given access to the information by the treating professionals, including attendance records; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the family for a period of one year; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

AMJ/dg Signed on January 23, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Bernard Sepinwall (Counsel for the children) Me Michel Brunet (Counsel for the parents) Date of hearing: January 16, 2012