2017 QCCQ 18064, 2017 QCCQ 18064

Protection de la jeunesse — 178543 2017 QCCQ 18064 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-032886-178 DATE : September 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2012 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] In the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to declare that the security or development of X and Y is endangered as a result of a serious risk of negligence. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the father has an alcohol dependency that causes him to behave in such a manner as to put his children’s physical safety at risk.

In particular, he was recently involved in a car chase with police officers while the girls were in his vehicle. [ 3 ] The mother expresses concern regarding the father’s behaviour and collaborates with the Director to ensure that the children are protected. [ 4 ] Consequently, the Director recommends that the children be entrusted to the mother with a social follow-up for ten months. [ 5 ] The mother admits all of the allegations as well as the state of endangerment and consents to the measures proposed. [ 6 ] The father is absent despite being duly informed of the hearing.

The mother explains that he left a letter for her stating that he would not be attending court and expressing his agreement with the proposed measures. He left a voice mail to the social worker expressing essentially the same thing. [ 7 ] The lawyer representing the children supports the Director’s position. The Situation [ 8 ] The evidence reveals that the father has alcohol consumption issues leading to recurring incidents of drinking and driving. Consequently, his licence has been suspended. On July 22, 2017, despite being prohibited from driving, the father took the wheel with the children in the vehicle.

His subsequent behaviour provoked a series of events that could very well have ended in tragedy. [ 9 ] According to the police report [1] filed into evidence, the father refused to stop when ordered to do so as a result of a traffic violation. A police chase took place with the children in the back seat. Neither child was secured with a seat belt. The police lost sight of the vehicle until it was eventually located in a parking lot. [ 10 ] This, however, was not the end of the matter. As the police officers approached, the father’s belligerence and physical

resistance to their intervention led them to draw their weapons while the children were in their line of sight. Despite the evident danger that the situation represented to the children, rather than cooperate, the father regained the driver’s seat and pulled out at a reckless speed while one of the vehicle doors remained opened. He then lost control of the vehicle, caused an accident, got out of the vehicle, grabbed the girls and attempted to leave the scene in a taxi before being intercepted by the police and summarily arrested.

Fortunately, the children were uninjured but clearly traumatized by this incident. [ 11 ] The father now faces criminal charges of dangerous driving. [ 12 ] During the course of the Director’s evaluation following these events, the mother explained that the father’s alcohol dependency had gotten progressively worse over the years, leading to his departure from the family home. Until the recent driving incident, he had nevertheless been a constant presence in the children’s lives and took them often for visits.

She states that she was unaware that the father was using his vehicle during these outings. [ 13 ] Since then, the mother affirms that she has no news from the father and doesn’t know where he lives. [ 14 ] During conversations with the social worker, the father refuses to discuss the events of July 22, 2017 as a result of the pending charges. He concedes, however, that he has been struggling with an alcohol dependency for the past two years and claims that he intends to begin an in-patient therapy shortly. He has yet to offer confirmation to that effect.

Although he initially expressed a willingness to cooperate with the social follow up, he has failed to do so. His contacts with the social worker are limited to organizing visits with the children. [ 15 ] Supervised contact with his children has been positive. The father’s conduct is appropriate and the girls express missing him. [ 16 ] The children are developing well, the mother provides adequate structure and meets their needs. During her testimony, she asserts that reconciliation with the father is not an option and she prefers to let the Director manage visits.

Conclusion [ 17 ] The father’s reckless and irresponsible behaviour put the safety of his daughters at great risk with potentially tragic consequences. Although there is no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the events in question, his dependency is clearly a contributing factor, having led to the suspension of his licence in the first place. [ 18 ] The evidence demonstrates that the father is in need of services to help him manage his personal difficulties.

Until such time, he remains a serious risk to the security of the girls. [ 19 ] To that effect, the Court encourages him to avail himself of the various services proposed by the Director, starting with the social follow up that he has chosen to ignore without explanation. This position is perplexing considering all of the circumstances and his obvious need for assistance.

His active participation can only serve the children’s best interests and his transparency with social services is essential in order to achieve any longstanding results. [ 20 ] UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, [ 21 ] THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their mother; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the father receive inpatient treatment by Le Portage or any other equivalent agency; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the children and their father be determined by the DYP including supervision if required; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE for a period of 10 months .

SIGNED IN TOWN A On October 12, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the children Date of hearing: September 26, 2017 KO/lf