2022 QCCQ 8046, 2022 QCCQ 8046

Protection de la jeunesse — 222396 2022 QCCQ 8046 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002749-213 DATE: February 2, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...], Applicant and A, deceased, Mother and B, Father and C, Tutor ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the 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 (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2007, are in danger under

section 38 b) (1) (iii) and e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] To summarize, the DYP alleges that the children were mistreated by their legal tutor and consequently, they have to be entrusted to a foster family until August 1, 2022. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 3 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], social worker for the DYP, testified about the steps she took to reach the father before the day of the present hearing. He was served the documents and she talked to him this morning.

The father clearly expressed that he did not want to come to Court today and he added that he wanted his daughter X to be entrusted to a particular foster family. [ 4 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES having jurisdiction to proceed in the absence of the father. [ 5 ] The youth is not present but she is represented. Since her lawyer could not find her and therefore could only talk to her siblings, X was represented on a legal mandate. [ 6 ] Furthermore, the youth’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in the best interest of the youth.

Facts [ 7 ] The DYP filed its documentary evidence and Ms. [Social Worker 1] also testified. [ 8 ] The Court’s decision is based on that unchallenged evidence. analysis [ 9 ] From that evidence, the Court concludes that the youth was neglected by her tutor and that she was the victim of physical abuse by her on many occasion. [ 10 ] It is also proven that the tutor, Ms. C, was consuming alcohol almost every day and that she did not adequately provide food to the youth.

[ 11 ] The evidence establish clearly that the youth was subjected to numerous forms of neglect and that many events occurred over several months. [ 12 ] The Court finds also worrisome that between 2016 and December 2021, 11 events of alleged situations of neglect were brought to the attention of the DYP. After investigation, the DYP considered the facts founded for six of those events and the security and development was considered compromised for five of those events. [ 13 ] Questioned about why nothing was done before recently to remove the youth from the care of Ms.

C, Ms. [Social Worker 1] explained that since the youth and her siblings were afraid to be separated from each other and sent to different foster home, they kept silent about what they were going through under the care of Ms. C. [ 14 ] But recently, the youth’s oldest sibling, Ms. D, became an adult and consequently, left the house of Ms. C.

She was then able to confirm the allegations of neglect and violence towards the children and she offered the DYP to take charge of her younger siblings. [ 15 ] This is basically the main measure proposed by the DYP to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are in danger. [ 16 ] After careful analysis of all the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the youth are indeed in danger on many aspects and also concludes that the measures proposed by the DYP are appropriate and respecting the rights of the youth.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth are in danger regarding

section 38 b) (1) (iii), 38 b) (1) (i), 38 c), 38 e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to Ms. D; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the youth and the youth’s father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the youth X and her father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that contacts between X and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with regards to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the youth’s family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for 6 months.

Signed on March 24, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the Applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Date of hearing: February 2, 2022