2017 QCCQ 16966, 2017 QCCQ 16966

Protection de la jeunesse — 177331 2017 QCCQ 16966 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005037-166 760-41-005038-164 DATE: July 3, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2010 Y , born on [...], 2013 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Applicant v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On July 4, 2016, the Court declares that a situation of endangerment in regards to the child X in reason of sexual abuse by his father.

As for his sister Y, the Court declares a serious risk of sexual abuse. Numerous protective measures are put in place for one year while maintaining the children in their mother’s care.

Their contacts with their father are suspended until such time as he is released from prison. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the revision and extension of this order, alleging that the continued application of protective measures is required in view of an imminent resumption of their contacts with their father. [ 3 ] The mother consigns her admissions and agrees to the orientation sought by the Director of Youth Protection, as does the attorney for the children, acting under a legal mandate. [ 4 ] The Court receives a correspondence from the father’s attorney signaling their mutual absence at the hearing while further stating that there is no contestation of the pending applications. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] The children remain with their mother since the last judgment and are evolving well under her care. [ 7 ] X completes a therapy with Le Centre d’expertise Marie-Vincent in relation to the sexual abuse he suffers at the hands of his father.

This follow-up ceases with the realization of the set objectives. He is doing well and not exhibiting any further repercussions from the abuse. [ 8 ] There have been no contacts between the children and their father since the last order, as he is still purging the jail sentence resulting from the sexual assault on his son.

Contingent to his current request for parole, the father anticipates being released either in August or at the latest, in November 2017. [ 9 ] The father is actively engaged in a therapeutic program offered in his detention center, which specialized in the evaluation and the treatment of sexual delinquents. He wishes to resume his contacts and his implication towards his children, while being conscious of the challenges in place. [ 10 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the conclusions sought by the Director of Youth Protection reflect the children’s best interests.

[ 11 ] The father has been absent from his children’s lives for a significant period and this, in conjunction with a situation of sexual abuse. During this time, the children have adapted and are evolving well. His return in their lives will invariably require accompaniment and supervision to ensure that they maintain their equilibrium and transition positively to this change.

This is especially pertinent in X’s case, as he is the direct victim of the abuse and will have to deal with the myriad of emotions brought on by his father’s return in his life. [ 12 ] As such, the plan set forth in the last judgment still reflects the children’s best interests (our underlining): [34] The Court will order a period of one year for the measures to take place.

A message must be sent that the contacts between the father and his children will need to be reintroduced, but those contacts must be prepared and adjusted to the reality of the children and of their father. [ 13 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 16 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 4, 2016; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children remain in their maternal environment; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be permitted once he is released from incarceration and then, as follows: • The contacts between the children and their father will be determined according to an agreement intervening between the parties as to their modalities, frequency and duration; • Visitation will be supervised by a person designated by the Director of Youth Protection; • Other means of contact, namely by letter, Facebook, Skype, telephone or other, may be arranged by mutual agreement between the parties; • The first contact between the child X and his father will take place within a maximum delay of four weeks from the father’s release from jail; • The contacts between Y and her father will be reintroduced after the contacts with X have commenced; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continue his implication in view of receiving services offered by the Center for Intervention in Sexual Delinquancy or the other services currently in place; [ 23 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of Montérégie for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Amélie St-Denis Attorney for the Applicant Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Daniel Cooper Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: July 3, 2017