2017 QCCQ 6807, 2017 QCCQ 6807

Protection de la jeunesse — 173052 2017 QCCQ 6807 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000747-170 DATE: May 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], social worker, exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A [...] Applicant -and- X, domiciled and residing at [...] at City B, district A, [...] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] at City B, district A, [...] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at [...] in City C, [province A], [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A DRAFT AGREEMENT (Sec. 76.3 and 76.4 Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 makes an application to have the security and the development of X, born on [...], 2015, declared endangered. [ 2 ] The parties submitted to this Court a draft agreement on measures to put an end to the situation that compromises the security and the development of the child. [ 3 ] The child is absent but represented by a lawyer.

The parents are both present and the mother is represented. [ 4 ] The draft agreement states that the consent of the parties was given in a free and enlightened manner. The parties acknowledge the following facts which endanger the security and the development of X: 2.1 The parents separated a few months prior to the child’s birth; 2.2 The mother has the custody of the child; 2.3

a) The father has regular contacts with the child, namely every two weekends; 2.3

b) The father, Mr B is not legally recognized but act as a father since the child’s birth; 2.4 Since more than a year, the mother has been in a conjugal relationship with Mrs. C; 2.5 On March 17, 2017 the director received a report regarding the child following a violent event that occurred between the mother and her spouse; 2.6 It was the fifth (5 th ) time that the director was receiving a report regarding the child since June 2016; 2.7 Mostly, among others, the previous reports referred to alleged drug consumption by the mother and her spouse and also to

violent fights between them; 2.8 On March 17, 2017, the mother and Mrs. C had a violent quarrel while they were in Mrs. C's vehicle in the parking of the Temiscaming health center; 2.9 During that quarrel, the mother broke the windows of the vehicle; 2.10 Following that event, it was not possible for Mrs. C to go get the child at the daycare center with the mother; 2.11 Short after that, the mother arrived at the daycare center very upset; 2.12 The police was called for assistance in order to make sure that the mother and the child would be in security; 2.13 On March 17, 2017, Mrs.

C asserted that the mother had suicidal thoughts and that she was physically and verbally aggressive; 2.14 On March, 20, 2017, a provisional agreement was reached with the mother who accepted to receive help; 2.15 On March 22, 2017, when the mother was seen by her doctor, she refused a physical examination but accepted a reference for a psychiatric assessment; 2.16 If the mother admits that in the past she had been a heavy drug user, she asserts that presently she only smokes cannabis once in a while; 2.17 On March 24, 2017, when the applicant arrived to the mother's domicile for a meeting; there was a strong smell of cannabis in the entrance; 2.18 The mother's intentions regarding her relationship with Mrs.

C are not clear; 2.19 As for the father, when he was informed of the child’s situation by the applicant, he mentioned that he agreed with the recommendations of the director of youth protection; [ 5 ] They also agree on several measures in order to put an end to the situation which endangers the child’s security and development: 3.0 That the child is entrusted to the mother 3.1 That the contacts between the child and his father be supervised by the DYP as to the frequency, duration and modalities; 3.2 That the child and the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the tribunal; 3.3 That the mother and her partner maintain their couple counseling follow up as long as judged necessary by the professional; 3.4 That the mother authorizes the exchange of relevant information between the professionals involved; 3.5 That the mother and her partner Mrs.

C do not expose the child to conflict; 3.6 That the mother goes through a medical evaluation and follows through with the doctor’s recommendations if needed; 3.7 That a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; 3.8 That the mother reports, at regular intervals, to the director to inform him of the current situation; 3.9 That the child attend a childcare establishment; 3.10 All those measures for a period of 12 months. [ 6 ] Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the measures are likely to put an end to the situation and respect the rights and the interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 8 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger under sections 38(b) (2) and 38(

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 9 ] ORDERS the implementation of the measures mentioned in the draft agreement sighed and submitted by the parties; [ 10 ] ORDERS the parties to respect these measures; [ 11 ] ORDERS that any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present order, if required;

[ 12 ] ENTRUST the situation of the child to the Director of the Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures agreed upon between the parties. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the child M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: May 18, 2017