r v. A, 2014 QCCQ 16376

Protection de la jeunesse — 144453 2014 QCCQ 16376 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004378-124 DATE: June 4, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] , 2008 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision and extension of a Court decision rendered on August 12, 2013 concerning X , born on [...] , 2008. [ 2 ] The previous judgment determines that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment, neglect (educational plan) and a serious risk of neglect.

As primary protective measures, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family and provides his progressive reintegration in his maternal environment from September 27 th to December 20 th 2013. The father's access rights are subject to an agreement between the parties as well as supervision by a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection.

Various other protective measures are put in force until May 12, 2014. [ 3 ] The motion under review seeks the revision and extension of the said Court decision, citing that although the child is evolving positively in his maternal environment, the continued parental conflict and the father's resistance to the measures, contribute to maintaining the situation of endangerment.

The Director recommends that the Court prolong the application of protective measures for 9 months, including the supervision of the father's visitation. [ 4 ] The parties consign their admissions in the Court file. [ 5 ] The parents indicate their agreement as to the pursuit of protective measures.

They both present specific requests as to the structure of the father's contacts (detailed hereinafter). [ 6 ] The child, represented by an attorney, is in agreement with the conclusions sought by the Director of Youth Protection, particularly as to the structure of his contacts with his father. [ 7 ] Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Since X 's reintegration with his mother in December 2013, there is a progressive improvement in his behaviours both at home and at school, with a significant diminishment of violent outbursts and reactions.

The relationship between X and his mother normalizes, with each gradually reprising their respective roles. [ 9 ] The mother cooperates actively in the intervention and demonstrates a continued commitment to resolving the problematic issues having justified protective measures. She accepts the follow-ups and interventions proposed, while demonstrating the ability to integrate positive changes in her parental role. The mother recognizes that she continues to require support and services.

[ 10 ] The father's contacts initially occur on a weekly basis, for 4 hours, and under the supervision of a caseworker. These visits are generally positive. The father is collaborative and implicated. In December 2013, the parties agree to the removal of supervision. [ 11 ] As of X 's return to his mother's care, the parent's exchanges resume and visitation once again becomes a live issue. Notwithstanding the Director's intercessions in view of putting in place a coherent and mutually acceptable routine of visitation, the conflicts and recriminations intensify.

The father's cooperation wanes and there is a resurgence of alienating behaviours. [ 12 ] The father leaves belligerent and insulting phone messages to the caseworker. His interactions with the Director are mostly hostile. [ 13 ] The child exhibits reactions to the contacts. More notably, he becomes distant and anxious at the occasion of his visits with his father. He repeats negative comments emanating from his father in regards to his mother.

He states his anger in regard to being witness to the tense and conflictual exchanges between his parents. [ 14 ] On March 21, 2014, the child verbalizes hearing an argument between his father and his paternal grandmother, during which the father states that he would have to put an axe to her neck. [ 15 ] On April 10, 2014, the Court revises the father's contacts on a provisional basis, providing that these occur on the weekends at a time and place to be determined by the parties and under supervision by the Director of Youth Protection.

The Court further recommends that the contacts occur alternately in a neutral environment and at the father's domicile, conditional to the preceding access period having been positive. [ 16 ] Since the reinstatement of supervised visits, the father refrains from speaking of the mother, allowing the child to benefit from his relationship with his father, while sheltering him from the loyalty conflict engendered by the father's alienating behaviours.

X maintains wanting to see his father, but for the time being, appreciating the supervised setting. [ 17 ] Both parents demonstrate parental capacities and strengths, but remain, to different levels, overwhelmed by their persistent conflicts and negative perceptions. [ 18 ] The mother takes steps to distance herself from the father, permitting her to focus on her son's needs. The results are such that X is now able to reduce his anxieties and progress in his development.

It is essential to promote these improvements. [ 19 ] As for the father, his inability and/or unwillingness to shield his son from his emotional reactions in regards to the mother, dictate that the Court maintain supervision of the visitation periods. [ 20 ] Therefore, after considering the evidence, the Court determines that the motion is well-founded and that the orientation put forth reflect the child's best interests. [ 21 ] As to the father's contacts, at the hearing on the merits, the parties concede that the provisional form of the contact order is in the child's best interests, and the Court reprises it. [ 22 ] Furthermore, in view of the continued parental conflict and the negative effects still engendered on the child, the Court deems appropriate to renew the orders structuring the parent's communications in his presence; to which the parties acquiesce. [ 23 ] The father petitions the Court to be able to attend his son's soccer practices and/or games, which occur weekly on Tuesdays.

In the past, he participates actively in this activity. He cites his intention of remaining a spectator and to not to distract his son from his activity by being an overt presence. In fact, he intends to watch from a distance and to leave before the end of the activity. He promises to respect any parameters ordered in this respect. [ 24 ] The mother agrees that the father's presence at soccer would be encouraging for X .

In the past, their mutual presence has been the source of arguments and conflicts during this activity; she offers that they each attend on an alternate basis and that she will take measures to ensure her son's transportation by a friend on the father's week.

In these circumstances, the mother sees no impediment to the father attending on the sidelines. [ 25 ] The caseworker testifies to his reticence as to this measure, citing the father's repeated disregard of agreements in place as to his contacts. [ 26 ] As the parents are able to mutually agree to the structure allowing the child to benefit from his father's non-invasive presence during his soccer practices, the Court considers it is appropriate to encourage their efforts in his best interests of X .

It is important to note that this participation in no way affects the supervised nature of the father's contacts, requiring that he abstain from communicating directly with his son during this activity, save mutual agreement between the parties. [ 27 ] At the hearing, the parents are able to discuss and agree to modulations of the father's contacts during the summer period, allowing for the child to be with his mother during her vacation period. [ 28 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the child be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party; In default of such an agreement: [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be supervised by the Director during the weekends for a period and/or place to be determined by the parties and further: [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that one week on two these contacts be in a neutral environment determined by the parties and that for the subsequent week they be at the father's domicile, conditional to the preceding contact being positive; [ 36 ] PERMITS the father to assist every second week to X 's soccer practices on Tuesdays from 6h30 to 7h30, commencing June 10, 2014; [ 37 ] TAKES ACT that the mother will exercise two consecutive weeks of vacation with the child and will advise the father of the weeks chosen on/or before June 13, 2014; [ 38 ] TAKES ACT that the mother will not choose the weeks of the construction holiday, namely the weeks commencing July 29 until August 10, 2014; these weeks being reserved to offer the father replacement access dates to the periods which would ordinarily be scheduled during the mother's vacation period; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents not denigrate the other parent or other members of their family either in a direct or indirect fashion in the presence of the child; nor that they permit that a third party do so; [ 40 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and his father in the presence of the mother unless upon previous agreement established between the parties; [ 41 ] PERMITS the withdrawal of supervision upon agreement of the parties; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 44 ] ALLTHESE MEASURES for 9 months; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Mélodie Verreault-Nantel Attorney for the mother Me Yann Trignac Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 4, 2014