2021 QCCQ 10038, 2021 QCCQ 10038

Protection de la jeunesse — 214676 2021 QCCQ 10038 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002497-201 DATE: May 26, 2021 (written judgment rendered on August 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , presently detained at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 child X, born on [...], 2013, are endangered under paragraph (

c) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child remain with the mother at the exclusion of the father until September 30, 2021. [ 3 ] X has a brother, Y who is 9 years old. The Court is also seized with his situation. Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is absent and not represented.

Being dully served with the application and considering the numerous attempts made by the DYP worker to insure the mother’s presence, the Court proceed in her absence. [ 5 ] The father is absent, and Me Cassandra Neptune declares that she does not have a clear mandate from his part. [ 6 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. On her client’s behalf and after hearing the evidence, Me Tommasel submits that his situation should be declared endangered and that the measures are in his best interest.

Facts [ 7 ] On March 19, 2020, the DYP retained a report regarding psychological ill-treatment for the 2 children. This report was not the first one received about the children. Indeed, since February 2014, the DYP received 7 reports about the children. Some of those reports were closed because the facts were not founded, some others because the situation was not considered endangered and the other ones were closed for an incapacity to proceed. [ 8 ] The family lives in the village A. The parents have 4 children.

The oldest one was traditionally adopted by the maternal grandparents, the second one is living with his paternal grandparents and the 2 youngest concerned by the current application for protection are living with the parents. [ 9 ] The report received is regarding an event of domestic violence for which the police had to intervene. The mother had been strangled by the father in the presence of their second child who was at home for a few minutes. The 2 youngest children were not present. [ 10 ] On April 30, 2020, the DYP worker made an attempt to meet with the parents and went to their place.

The father was present with the children. The DYP worker asked them to stay until she went back a few minutes later with an interpreter. When she came back, no one was at home.

[ 11 ] Finally, the DYP worker was able to meet with the parents on May 20, 2020, after numerous attempts to meet them. [ 12 ] The father recognized the event of March 10, and he also recognized having an anger management issue and the need to work on it. He was on probation at that moment. He was collaborative, but had difficulty to think about solution to ensure that such situation will not happen again.

The DYP worker had the perception that the father does not speak English well and could have difficulty to give detail answers. [ 13 ] The mother also recognized the event and added that they were both intoxicated. She would like to end the relation, but each time she would like to leave, he finished to convince her to stay.

She recognized her drinking issues, but according to her, the children are always in a safe place when she decides to drink. [ 14 ] After the DYP conclude to a situation of endangerment for the children, the worker tried to meet the mother a few times, but she was never available until she came by herself at the office on June 15, 2020. She had difficulty to walk and had many bruises on her body. She explained that by the fact that another conjugal violent event occurred a few days before while they were both intoxicated.

The children were not present when the father started to assault her and he stopped when the children arrived. The mother was medevaced to Town A because of the seriousness of her injuries. Since she came back from Montreal, she was living at her mother’s place with the children. [ 15 ] As in April, the mother had the intention to go see her relative in Town B with her 2 children, but it was difficult to travel due to Covid-19 and also for financial reasons.

The DYP worker offered help, but she refused. [ 16 ] After that, many other attempts were made to meet with the mother without success until she was seen intoxicated on an ATV on July 28, and later the same day, totally passed out and lying down on the floor in her house. The children were outside of the house, without being supervised by an adult. [ 17 ] On July 31, 2020, the mother came at the office and she denied having an alcohol consumption issue. The father was detained at that moment waiting for his next appearance fixed in October.

Doing so, she considered that the children were safe. [ 18 ] Y had an accident in July 2019. He felt in the river, and he was in a respiratory arrest for 45 minutes. He was transferred to Town A and remained hospitalized at the rehabilitation centre. He was able to come back in [village A] only in November 2019. He had recovered well, but he still needs rehabilitation services and he is now more vulnerable. [ 19 ] According to the DYP worker, the parents have very good parental capacities when they are sober, but they are struggling with their alcohol consumption issues for many years now.

This addiction and the consequence of this addiction prevent their children to receive appropriate answer to their basic needs. [ 20 ] In November 2020, the hearing was postponed due to the fact that the mother was nowhere to be found. [ 21 ] In February 2021, the mother was still nowhere to be found and she did not show up at court once again. Due to her absence the file was postponed, but previously the Court ordered to make verification about the children’s location as they were apparently not at school. The DYP worker came back the day after saying that she had found the children.

They were safe at the grandmother place where the mother lives. [ 22 ] At the hearing, and after taking into consideration the whole situation since the report was received in March 2020, the DYP worker explains that the main issue is the conjugal violence. The alcohol consumption of the parents is less problematic for the children as the mother generally make sure that the children are babysat by a reliable person before start to drink. [ 23 ] The mother is currently living at her mother’s place, but planned to go to live back with the father as soon as his prohibition to be in [village A] will be finished.

For the DYP worker, this is an important concern and she plans to meet the parents to see what kind of organization they will put in place to ensure the children’s safety. For the DYP worker, cohabitation is currently impossible. [ 24 ] Since February 2021, the DYP worker was able to meet the children and the mother. Each time, the children were doing very well. They were going to school, and no concerns were raised. Y shows some behavioural issues at school, but he receives help for that. [ 25 ] During the last months, the mother’s collaboration improved.

Analysis [ 26 ] The reason for the report in March 2020 was a very serious one and would have required a more urgent intervention. Indeed, the evidence shows that the child is obviously endangered due to the exposure to conjugal violence which is very traumatizing for young children. [ 27 ] That being said, since the father is somewhere else, the children are doing well with the mother. The extended family is also available and protective. [ 28 ] The current concern is regarding the parents’ intention to be back together.

For the Court, it is not possible to place the children in a situation where they risk again to be exposed to such violence. [ 29 ] The parents were not present to hear what is expected from them, but the Court will order the DYP to clearly explain that they will have to put in place a safe plan to protect the children against the conjugal violence. [ 30 ] The children deserve to be raised by both parents, but to do so, the role of the DYP and of the Court is to make sure that their situations are safe.

Doing so, the Court will entrust the children under the mother’s care to the exclusion of the father until such restriction appears to be needed. More quickly the parents take steps to address their conjugal issues, more quickly the family will be

reunited. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are endangered under paragraph (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his mother at the exclusion of the father, as long as this restriction is judged necessary; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services required by his situation, including services at school; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the frequency, modality and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director of Youth protection; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the present decision be clearly explained to the parents; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Date of hearing: May 26, 2021