2017 QCCQ 5115, 2017 QCCQ 5115

Protection de la jeunesse — 172305 2017 QCCQ 5115 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032149-171 DATE : March 16, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) and order of interim measures ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on March 16, 2017. Introduction [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child is subject to psychological ill treatment from the parents and physical abuse from his father. The Director also alleges that there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs. [ 3 ] On January 30, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the mother’s care at the exclusion of the father.

The Tribunal ordered that the contacts between the child and the father occur at a minimum frequency of once per week and that they be supervised if necessary. Other support measures were also ordered until the main hearing. [ 4 ] From the Court report, we understood that the Director was recommending that the child be entrusted to the mother’s care at the condition that he sleeps at his maternal grandmother’s home or at a third party’s home approved by the Director of Youth Protection.

The Director was also recommending that support measures be provided for an interim period of 4 months. [ 5 ] Today, the Director is modifying the recommendations and asks that, on a provisional basis, the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother, C, at the exclusion of the mother, taking judicial notice that the child will spend the weekends with his paternal grandmother, D. [ 6 ] The father and the mother recognize that the child was subject to psychological ill treatment and that there is a serious risk of neglect. They deny that he was victim to physical abuse.

Question in litigation [ 7 ] Did the Director prove that the child was victim of physical abuse?

[ 8 ] Are the proposed measures respecting the child’s rights and his best interest? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The parents have a conflictual relationship. On November 20, 2016, there was a physical altercation between the parents in the child’s presence. The mother reports that during this incident, the father cornered her in the bathroom and choked her. She also mentioned that the father made threats to kill himself.

The father reports that the incident started as bags of cocaine were found in the mother’s coat. [ 10 ] The father admits consuming marijuana on a regular basis but reported that since November 20, 2016, he stopped his consumption. The father reported that his doctor recommended his marijuana use and that it is now legal. [ 11 ] The mother has a history of drug use and admits having used cocaine twice since the child’s birth. [ 12 ] She reports that the father mixes drinking alcohol and taking Ativan.

The father does not consider his drinking habits as problematic. [ 13 ] On November 21, 2016, the father was taken to the hospital twice due to alleged suicidal behaviours. He was released the same day. [ 14 ] Since then, the mother left with the child to reside at the maternal grandmother’s residence. [ 15 ] On January 16, 2017, an incident of violence occurred between the parents, in the child’s presence. The mother first reported that during this incident, the father pushed her on the ground, that he broke her cellular phone and that he threw the child on the bed.

She reported that the father was also physically aggressive with his sister Y. The father recognized that there was an altercation, but denied ever throwing the child on the bed. Following the altercation, the mother left the residence with the child. The mother returned with the child to visit the father from January 21 to January 24, 2017. Since, the mother recanted some of the facts regarding this incident, including the fact that the father had thrown the child on the bed. [ 16 ] The mother was duly represented during the hearing, but was absent when the Tribunal proceeded to hear the present case.

She did not testify to clarify this situation. The Director did not ask to postpone the hearing and left the question of physical abuse to the appreciation of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the Director has not met the burden of proof in order to declare that the child’s security or development is compromised under

article 38 e) 1 o of the Youth Protection Act . [ 17 ] The mother accessed support services from the CLSC and from Foster Pavilion. Professionals supporting the mother are concerned about some aspects of the mother’s parenting abilities and capacity to prioritize the child’s needs over her own. [ 18 ] Since January 2017, the father also took steps to receive support from the CLSC. [ 19 ] The father had regular and positive supervised contacts with the child at AMCAL.

On February 18, 2017, the visit had to be cancelled as the maternal grandmother did not know where the mother and the child were. [ 20 ] The father believes that, at some point in the future, he can be reunited with the mother and with the child and live as a family. The mother is not clear about her intentions regarding her relationship with the father. [ 21 ] The maternal grandmother shared some concerns with the youth protection worker as the mother had been out with the child and often they would not be sleeping home.

On other occasions, the mother would leave the home in the middle of the night with the child. When confronted with this situation, the mother has been vague. [ 22 ] On March 10, 2017, the youth protection worker was informed that the maternal grandmother found drugs and drug paraphernalia (scale) in her garage. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 b) 2 o and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 24 ] SETS the continuation of the hearing on June 21, 2017 in room 1.01 in front of the undersigned; [ 25 ] In the meantime: [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother, Mrs. C at the exclusion of the mother; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that during the weekends, the child will be with his paternal grandmother, Mrs. D at the exclusion of the mother; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents, as they had agreed, undergo drug and alcohol testing at the request of the worker;

[ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents insure that the child is not exposed to any form of physical or verbal violence; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address and that they both insure that the child is not expose to any substance use; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with treating professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Signed on March 29, 2017 /cd Mtre Edith Zavodni Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christian Benoît Counsel for the child Mtre Josselin Breton Counsel for the mother Mtre Francis Cloutier Counsel for the father Date of hearing: March 16, 2017