2013 QCCQ 17193, 2013 QCCQ 17193

Protection de la jeunesse — 138295 2013 QCCQ 17193 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] JN0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION Nos: 525-41-026215-129 525-41-026216-127 525-41-026214-122 525-41-026212-126 DATE: November 15, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A, Director and X ( born on [...], 2002 ) Y (born on [...], 2000) Z (born on [...], 1998) A (born on [...], 1996), Children and B, Mother and C, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR PROTECTION (SECTION 38 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or of his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (Sections 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] 1. THE PROCEEDINGS [ 2 ] The Court is seized of Motions for Protection filed pursuant to

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection A (hereafter, " the Director ") on August 8, 2012, to have the security and development of the [A family] children, A, born on [...], 1996, Z, born on [...], 1998, Y, born on [...], 2000 and X, born on [...], 2002, declared to be in danger.

[ 3 ] The family consists of the mother, the father and their seven daughters, born between 1991 and 2002. In addition to the four (4) children who are the subject of youth protection involvement, the daughters also include D, 22 years old, E, 20 years old, and F, 18 years old. [ 4 ] The parents were separated for approximately ten (10) years and in the summer of 2012, they decided to reconcile.

After dating for a few months, the father was invited to sleepover at the mother's home on a few occasions at the beginning of August. [ 5 ] Given the length of their parents' separation, the children were rather distraught by their reconciliation and a number of incidents involving the father occurred in the family home which led to the Director becoming involved. [ 6 ] The older siblings have also alleged a history of conjugal violence and that this turn of events is but another example of the father continuing to exert control over the mother and the children. [ 7 ] In addition, the older siblings have raised past incidents of inappropriate discipline imposed on them on the part of the father and of the paternal grandmother. [ 8 ] The children have reported being afraid of their father and refusing to return to the care of their mother. [ 9 ] On August 16, 2012, Mr.

Justice Denis Asselin entrusts the children to the care of their eldest sister, Mrs. D. It should be noted that at the time, F was also included in this Court order, as she had not yet reached the age of majority.

Once this occurred, the Director filed a Discontinuance of Proceedings with respect to F on April 23, 2013. [ 10 ] The Court adds that since the month of August 2012, there have been a number of Motions for Interim Measures brought before the Court, including the following: ➢ On October 26, 2012 the Director's attorney as well as the children's attorney requests that the children be able to retrieve their beds as well as their winter coats.

At the end of the hearing on that day, the parents' attorney at the time informs the Court that the winter coats were already in the children's possession but that the mother had disposed of the children's beds which had been provided by Agence A because of her move to a smaller apartment. ➢ On October 26, 2012 the children's lawyer also requests that F and A be allowed to sleepover nights at a friend's or at their sister's house with the permission of their eldest sister D. This request is denied by Mr.

Justice Jacques Roy. ➢ In addition, on October 26, 2012 the Director asks the Court to authorize D to obtain counselling services from Agence A for the two (2) youngest children, Y and X. Despite the mother's objection based on Agence A's refusal of the girls returning to her care, the Court grants the Director's request, recommending that the Director provide such services, if possible, failing which Agence A shall provide them. ➢ On November 13, 2012 the Court has to deal with a verbal request made by the children's lawyer to authorize the children to participate in a school activity to be held that week. Mr.

Justice Roy allows the children to participate in this event, including a sleepover, providing that the activity and sleepover are supervised by their school's principal. ➢ On December 17, 2012 the Court deals with the father's Motion to have the children entrusted to their mother. Mr. Justice Roy dismisses the father's Motion expressing that he is not sitting on appeal of Mr. Justice Asselin's ruling of August 16th. Mr. Justice Roy also announces he can no longer continue to preside the hearings of the Motions for Protection because of his limited availability.

By a judgment rendered on January 9, 2013, Chief Judge Élizabeth Corte appoints the undersigned to continue the hearing of these Motions . ➢ On January 30, 2013 Mr. Justice Louis Grégoire grants a Motion filed by the Director on behalf of F, A and Z, authorizing them to attend a school activity in New York, as well as a wedding.

He also withdraws the exercise of parental authority relating to school and normal social activities, conferring this exercise to the Director until the hearing of the Motions for Protection. ➢ On April 23, 2013 the Court is requested to make a number of interim rulings until the hearing resumes on August 6 th . In particular, the Court orders the following: ▪ WITHDRAWS the attribute of parental authority concerning all documentation relating to registration for school and school activities from the parents; ▪ CONFERS this attribute to the eldest sister of the children, Mrs.

D; ▪ WITHDRAWS the attribute of parental authority relating to registration for either Camp A or Camp B from the parents; ▪ CONFERS this attribute to the eldest sister of the children, Mrs.

D , specifically for registration of one or several of the children to these two (2) summer camps in particular; ▪ TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection's undertaking to allow contacts between the children and their parents in accordance with the desires and wishes expressed by the children; and in such a case, ▪ ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the children and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth

Protection including supervision, if deemed necessary; ▪ TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents' consent to allow sleepovers requested by the children at their sister E's home, and in such a case, so long as no males are present in her apartment for such sleepovers, as well as sleepovers with the following families: the G family, the H family, the I family and at the home of J. ➢ On June 14, 2013 the attorney for the children files a Motion for Provisional Measures on behalf of Z, requesting that she be authorized to attend Camp C for the summer, from June 27th to July 21, 2013.

This Motion is contested by the parents and the hearing begins on June 19 th and is postponed to July 5 th to allow for the testimony of two other (2) witnesses, namely Mrs. K of Agence A and Rabbi A, Principal of A Academy .

The Court grants the Motion and issues the following orders : ▪ AUTHORIZES Z to attend Girl Zone Camp in the [Region A] of New York State from Wednesday, July 24th to Tuesday, August 27, 2013; ▪ TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of Rabbi A's undertaking to ensure that a responsible adult be involved to ensure the appropriate transit of Z to the Girl Zone Camp bus in New York City upon her arrival there as well as upon her return; ▪ TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother's offer to accompany Z should Z have a change of heart and accept that her mother travel with her to and from New York in the context of her attending Girl Zone Camp; ➢ On August 6, 2013 at the end of the hearing that day, the children's attorney requests authorization for the children to travel with their eldest sister D to New York State on August 11 th to visit their sister Z at Girl Zone Camp .

This authorization is denied by the Court. ➢ Finally, on August 20, 2013, the mother's attorney files Motions in the files of Y and X, alleging certain facts which allegedly occurred on August 11 th as well as other facts which have been raised during the hearing of the Motions for Protection . These Motions are scheduled to be presented on September 16 th when the hearing of the Motions for Protection is supposed to conclude. On September 16 th , the Court first points out that the key criteria regarding such a Motion is necessity.

The Court also refers to its duty to hear all of the evidence before reaching a decision set out under

Article 77 of the Youth Protection Act, which has been interpreted as conferring considerable powers to the Court in terms of the administration of proof. The Court goes on to note that several of the facts alleged in support of the Motions have already been submitted by various witnesses. [ 11 ] In addition to the four days of hearing before Mr. Justice Jacques Roy in the Fall of 2012, the undersigned had, by September 16 th , presided an additional four (4) days regarding the Motions for Protection .

This does not include the Court time spent in dealing with some of the other various interim Motions referred to above dealing with issues of travel of certain of the children for a Sabatton and a summer camp in New York. [ 12 ] The hearing date of September 16 th was scheduled so that the Court could hear the parties' closing arguments, all of the parties having submitted their evidence. [ 13 ] The Court thus rules that it has sufficient evidence to make an appropriate ruling as to whether the security and development of the children are in danger and if so, what measures should be ordered. [ 14 ] As a result, the Court finds that the Motions are not receivable for the following reasons: 1.

They were filed on August 20 th and were presentable on September 16 th , which does not meet the criteria of urgency and necessity usually associated with this type of Motion . 2.

On December 17, 2012, as well as on July 5 th and on August 6 th , 2013 the Court was asked to rule on interim measures which go to the core of its « enquête » on the Motions for Protection, namely whether the children's security and development are in danger and if so, whom should they be entrusted to. [ 15 ] The Court holds that allowing additional evidence to be submitted at this stage of the proceedings is inappropriate and contravenes the spirit of the Youth Protection Act . It refers to its inherent power set out under

Article 77 of the Act . The facts which occurred on August 11 th are not of sufficient probative weight in light of all of the evidence already submitted to the Court to warrant additional Court time or delays. The Motions are thus dismissed. [ 16 ] 2.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE [ 17 ] 2.1 Evidence of the Director [ 18 ] In addition to the documentary evidence filed in the Court record, the Director has the following witnesses testify. [ 19 ] 2.1.1 Testimony of F [ 20 ] She is seventeen years old when she testifies and states that she was 6 or 7 when her parents separated.

[ 21 ] She kept seeing her father for the weekend Shabbat for 4 or 5 years but visits stopped because they were not working out and she did not feel safe going to see him at the paternal grandmother's house. [ 22 ] F was also confused because her father would say a lot of bad things about her mother and refer to the arguments they had and dishes they threw at each other. [ 23 ] Her father came to the mother's home a few times for visitation with her sisters Y and X. [ 24 ] F remembers her father tying her up with long ropes once or twice a month due to small things he would get very mad about and her mother wasn't able to protect her because she was afraid of him.

Her grandmother would help to pull and tighten the ropes as she was living with them then. The ropes would leave marks on her.

She was about 7 or 8 years old when this happened. [ 25 ] She also remembers her mother being hit by her father and having bruises, and her and her sisters hiding in another room as they were afraid to be hit by their father. [ 26 ] The father also spoke disrespectfully to the mother and told her to shut up. [ 27 ] F recalls the refrigerators being locked by the grandmother so the mother could not get food on her own. [ 28 ] She describes the atmosphere in the home after the parents separated as being more calm, normal and stable, with her mother expressing her opinions. [ 29 ] When the father came back into their life in the summer of 2012, the mother would not answer her cell phone and would come back home and would start acting like her father.

Her mother's attitude changed and started being colder like her father whereas she had always been caring and sensitive. [ 30 ] F testifies that she was shocked at first when her mother told her she was seeing her father, stating that they were fighting for the Guett for the mother for so many years and it was 2 weeks before the court date. She adds that they went to many rabbis and a lot of people to support them, and that her and her sisters were all ready to testify in Superior Court for what the father had done to them in the past.

She states that the mother fell into the father's trap. [ 31 ] She felt a mix of emotions, describing herself as mad, angry and confused. [ 32 ] F recalls one night when the mother was at a hotel and the children were left alone without any supervision. She says they were scared and that she tried to call her mother many times on her cell phone and she wasn't answering. She was very worried for her. [ 33 ] In a span of 1 to 2 weeks, she mentions that the father started coming to their house, staying over for the whole day with the mother.

She was not comfortable with that and told her mother a few times but she did not listen to her. [ 34 ] F describes an incident when her younger sister Z wanted to watch television and the father told her to turn it off which she refused to do. The father then took her by the hand, squeezed it tightly and twisted it while telling her to close the television. She denies that Z tried to hit the father. The mother then did the same thing, squishing Z's wrist.

She claims Z had a mark. [ 35 ] Y and X were in bed in their room, heard what was going on and started crying. [ 36 ] Z then left the house with A and F claims that the father locked the front and back doors so they would not be able to enter the house upon their return. [ 37 ] She states that every time she would try to give her opinion, the father would put her down and tell her if she did not agree, she could leave the house and that he would find her a foster home.

Her mother would copy him. [ 38 ] F claims that the father took out the Internet , the television as well as her sister's phone while impersonating her with her phone. He also made her and her sisters dress more conservatively. He claimed they were misbehaving. [ 39 ] He imposed a lot of rules in a very short time and the children were not even comfortable with him being there.

He did not apologize for what he did to them in the past and it was an awkward relationship with them. [ 40 ] Their mother did not voice her opinions any more and if she would try to intervene, the father would put his hand close to her mouth and tell her to be quiet. [ 41 ] While E was away for a vacation, the father turned her room into a storage area. [ 42 ] Since their entrustment to their eldest sister D, she had a few visits with her mother, once at their school and the other ones with all of her sisters at the Director's offices as well as at her mother's house.

She found the first to be embarrassing as it was in front of all of her friends. As for the other visits, the children spoke to the mother and it didn't really go well because everybody was really angry at her. F was very disappointed with her mother's answers. [ 43 ] She refuses to go back home because she doesn't trust her mother who lied to her about seeing her father.

She states that therapy for every member of the family would be required for the children to go back home. [ 44 ] As for contacts, she mentions she would like weekly supervised contacts with her mother but is not comfortable to have contacts with her father yet. [ 45 ] F is receiving individual therapy from Auberge A as well as tutoring from [Agence A] .

[ 46 ] On cross-examination, she explains that at D's in Ville A, there are two separate apartments across the hall from one another on the fourth floor and that the doors are open all the time during the day and locked at night. In the younger girls' apartment, there is a master bedroom in which A and Z sleep in a queen-size bed while she sleeps on the individual bed, whereas in the room right next door, Y and X sleep on a queen-size bed. D's husband is the janitor for the building. [ 47 ] D and her husband have a year and a half old child.

The girls go to school during the day and when they return to the apartment, they have a meal together in their apartment which has a dining room. D is there when they do their homework and prepare for bed.

F is in charge of locking the door around 10 P.M. and has a phone on her in case. [ 48 ] Only A and her have the keys, as they are mostly in charge of their apartment. [ 49 ] In the morning, the girls wake up at 6 A.M., unlock the door, prepare their snacks and lunches and leave for school under D's supervision. [ 50 ] They have to be in the apartment by 8 P.M. and sleepovers at their friends' home are not allowed by their parents. [ 51 ] 2.1.2 Testimony of Z [ 52 ] She is fourteen years old when she testifies. She was about five 5 years old when her parents separated.

She had contacts with her father until she was eleven years old and then they had a fight on the telephone and stopped seeing each other. [ 53 ] Z used to celebrate Shabbat at her father's house every weekend with either Y or X. She always felt controlled by him because he always put rules on her and she never really liked it.

He would call her at her mother's home and she would have to answer him and tell him she was obeying those rules, even as a child. [ 54 ] There were not as many rules at her mother's home but the children all knew their limits. [ 55 ] She states that she did not accept her mother reconciling with her father and questioned her as to why she was doing so. She replied that their father had changed but when he came to the mother's home, Z says that he was exactly the same, as he was abusive and controlling (putting rules). He did not apologize to her nor to her sisters.

He would ask for things such as a cup of water and she felt he looked at her with the requirement of her having to respect him. [ 56 ] She declares that her father started coming over and bringing things like food to the mother. He was treating her like nothing, like he didn't even care about her. When the girls and the father argued a bit and the mother tried to interfere, he would tell her to be quiet. [ 57 ] According to Z, before her father's return, she had a close relationship with her mother whom she referred to as an amazing mum. Upon his return, she didn't act like herself any more, she acted like him.

She would only speak when she had something of his to say. [ 58 ] She refers to new rules in the home, such as wearing pants instead of shorts as pyjamas, taking away the Internet and establishing a bedtime in the summer. He would bring fresh croissants and baguettes in the morning but tell some of the children to get their own bread from the freezer because they were not obeying his rules. [ 59 ] Z refers to the incident when she was watching television with her mother in the evening to get their mind off the day of fast they were going through.

The father came and said they were not to watch television and the mother agreed. When they were about to pull the plug of the television out, Z disagreed and said it was unfair. Her father took her by her wrist and twisted her arm with all his force, and held it up high which hurt her and made her cry. She asked him to stop, his face was all red and he looked mad. The mother asked him to stop. When Z continued preventing them from taking the plug out, her mother started twisting her arm like her father, but she managed to push her away. The other children were in the home when this happened and they were afraid.

Y and X were crying, and A and Z had to comfort them. [ 60 ] After this altercation, Z left the home with A. She was stressed, frustrated and mad, and her sister was calming her down. When they returned around 2 or 3 A.M., the front door was locked. The back door, which was always open, was also locked. They managed to enter the home and saw the father who got out of bed and asked them how they got into the house. [ 61 ] Afterwards, she did not speak to either of her parents because she was mad at both of them.

She felt that there was no use of speaking to her mother. [ 62 ] Z also recounts an incident which occurred at the synagogue when she was 4 or 5 and had cried to obtain a box of prizes. Her father asked the paternal grandmother to help him tie her up in ropes outside of the synagogue and she was put in the trunk of the car before they drove away. She was not able to move and was screaming and crying. [ 63 ] Z points out that at D's, they sometimes eat in their apartment, and sometimes in D's apartment. They all eat together as a big family.

They all handle breakfast and making lunches for school independently while helping their younger sisters out. [ 64 ] A woman from [Agence A] comes on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to help them with supper and lunches for school, as well as laundry and cleaning the apartment. [ 65 ] She is seeing a social worker and is also attending tutoring programs at [Agence A] which has also helped them with food and clothing. [ 66 ] Z misses what she calls her mother's real self and only wants to have contacts with her if she goes to therapy. She does not want

any contacts with her father. [ 67 ] On cross-examination, she declares that when the father came back in July of 2012, he often screamed at the children when they didn't follow his rules and even told them to shut up on one occasion. [ 68 ] She confirms that she was disappointed and angry to hear that her mother was not going to move forward on obtaining the Guett . [ 69 ] She comments the document filed as Exhibit M-1, « Sperm Donor's Chair », which her sister A drafted but put in her drawer before it was found by the father who took it.

She is very sure it was never put on the father's chair. [ 70 ] 2.1.3 Testimony of A [ 71 ] She is 16 years old when she testifies. She was about 7 years old when her parents separated. She had contacts with her father for a few years before they got into a fight and stopped talking for 5 years straight. [ 72 ] Contacts would take place at her grandmother's house and would always involve F and herself.

They were day visits and involved normal activities such as grocery shopping. [ 73 ] She called her father up one day and told him she no longer wanted to speak to him because of he was very controlling and pressuring her. He would say that the mother was not responsible and speak badly about her. She was very angry and frustrated because she was confused. [ 74 ] A states that the whole family went to Court to help the mother obtain the Guett to support her and testify in her favour. The importance of this for the mother was to acquire her independence and obtain her freedom from the father's controlling ways.

The parents were usually fighting and it was not a pleasant thing.

Her grandmother used to hit her on her arm at the request of her father. [ 75 ] She saw her father tie her sister Z up with a rope. [ 76 ] After her parents separated, her mother, D and E provided help with discipline. [ 77 ] She explains that before her parents' reconciliation, her mother was a caring and generous person but when the father came back, she totally changed, forgot about the children and put the father in front of them. [ 78 ] A says she gave the father a chance but witnessed the arm twisting incident involving Z which really scared her. [ 79 ] Z was screaming and telling him to let go, which he did when the mother intervened.

He was all red and frustrated. All of a sudden, the mother took Z's arm again to do the exact same thing while Z was asking her why she was doing that. [ 80 ] A confirms that she and Z went out for a walk afterwards because they were very frustrated and needed to get their minds off everything. Upon their return, the front door was locked and to their surprise, so was the back door. After they managed to get inside the house, the father got up and asked them what they were doing there. They replied by asking him where did he expect them to go.

Both A and Z felt really hurt by this incident. [ 81 ] She claims there were a lot of fights and disagreements at home and that the father was just trying to gain control again. [ 82 ] She refers to asking for a piece of fresh baguette one morning and the father intervening to deny her request and telling her to get her own bread from the freezer.

She also states that the father would tell her to go to her room and to go to bed at 11 P.M. [ 83 ] She does not wish to see her mother as she feels she is like her father and is not the same person any more. [ 84 ] School has been very supporting for her and she is receiving social services from an [Agence A] social worker. [ 85 ] At D's, there is a chart identifying everyone's tasks.

F and herself are usually there to watch over the younger children, as well as D and her husband. [ 86 ] As for Exhibit M-1, she wrote it and was going to put it on her father's chair but her sister told her not do so and she thus put it back in her drawer and closed it. She says what she wrote is what she feels because the father was never there for them and there was never a normal relationship between him and her. [ 87 ] Upon her father's return, he also told A to stop seeing and sleeping over at her best friend's house. He also took away her phone because she was not going to bed at 11 P.M.

Her father then used her phone to impersonate her by texting some of her friends. [ 88 ] She is undecided as to whether she wants to see her mother or not. She would rather stay with her sisters than with friends because she knows the family will be there forever. [ 89 ] 2.1.4 Testimony of E [ 90 ] She is nineteen years old when she testifies. She left the mother's home when she returned from Israel during the Summer of 2012. Her mother no longer wanted to talk to her because of a letter she wrote to [Agence A] about what was happening in her mother's home.

Her mother had told her she did not want her to come home when she was in Israel. [ 91 ] E claims to have been emotionally abused by her father when she was younger. [ 92 ] He was very, very strict and would slap her on the butt to discipline her. She recalls the fear of him hitting her.

[ 93 ] She saw her parents get into an argument and the father poking the mother with a curtain rod in the kitchen and her mother throwing a glass on the floor. [ 94 ] After her parents' separation when she was about nine (9) or ten (10), she saw her father on alternate weekends for one (1) or two (2) years.

They got into a fight about her going to a religious play with her family on a school night and they stopped speaking for several years. [ 95 ] When they started seeing each other again, he offered to tutor her but requested that in exchange, she tell the mother that he be allowed to come in the house. [ 96 ] E confirms that she supported her mother in her attempt to obtain the Guett . [ 97 ] She also was a witness to her paternal grandmother tying ropes on Z's legs and hands because she was a stubborn little girl. [ 98 ] E lives in a 3 ½ room apartment and goes to D's during the week to help out, and even sleeps there on weekends. [ 99 ] Neither of her parents want to talk to her. [ 100 ] On cross-examination, E confirms that although the father was never violent with Y and X, he would say a lot of bad things about the mother when they would go and see him, just as was the case with herself. [ 101 ] During her childhood, she remembers the father being violent with the mother as well as her paternal grandmother, using ropes on her when she was stubborn and crying, with her parents present and not reacting. [ 102 ] E said that when she found out that the father was sleeping in the home in the Summer of 2012, she told her sisters to be careful and was told she could no longer live there as she was trying to break peace in the home. [ 103 ] She claims to have been very close to her mother during her parents' 10 year separation.

During this time, the atmosphere in the home was very relaxed and there were not many disputes between her sisters because she always assumed the role of fixing things up without the mother intervening.

The latter told her that maybe this was the case because she had been abused in the past. [ 104 ] When her mother was pregnant, she recalls seeing the father locking the food pantries so her mother would not gain weight. [ 105 ] With respect to violence, E reiterates seeing her father poking her mother with a curtain rod and claims the mother went to Israel with F when she was pregnant because of the father's violence. [ 106 ] 2.1.5 Testimony of D [ 107 ] She is twenty-two years old when she testifies. She was about 10 when her parents separated and reports that things were really bad at home when she was young.

The parents were fighting and the father was always angry, screaming and telling them what to do. Her mother was scared and never answered back or stood up for herself. [ 108 ] She was not allowed to sleepover at friends' homes because her friends were not religious enough. He would never let them watch television. She remembers her mother buying a movie and telling her not to tell the father.

The latter treated the mother very badly, cursing and screaming at her. [ 109 ] When she was 3, D recalls her father pinning down her mother by the neck with his forearm to a door to prevent her from leaving the grandmother's home. [ 110 ] She remembers their paternal grandmother tying her and her sisters with a belt and hitting them with a broom.

The father also used to hit them now and then for not listening or not studying. [ 111 ] She feels that they never had a normal life, as the father did not let them ride a bike or go to school plays. [ 112 ] When visiting with the father for Shabbat after the separation, E and her agreed on what to tell him so that they would say the same things. The father would say horrible things about the mother such as she was lazy and the separation was her fault. [ 113 ] D got into a fight with her father and stopped seeing him at the age of fourteen.

They made up and when her father told her that if she didn't want to listen to him, he did not wish to see her, they broke off again. The father was aggressive verbally with her and spoke loudly with an angry tone. [ 114 ] She claims that during the parents' separation, the mother was caring and supportive, and that normal rules and curfews applied in the home. Sleepovers were allowed. She did not have that fear which existed when the father was there. [ 115 ] D left home when she got married at the age of seventeen and was best friends with her mother with whom she went out and went shopping.

Her mother was excited when she became pregnant and helped her whereas her father was not there at all for her. Her daughter will be 2 years old in June of 2013. [ 116 ] Her mother begged her to come to court to support her and testify as to how life was when the parents were together prior to their separation. When E left for Israel, the father and the mother reconciled and the mother completely changed and no longer stands up for herself. [ 117 ] D's sisters came to see her to tell her they were upset with the father's actions. She discussed it with her mother who answered

back that her sisters were jealous and just did not want her to be happy. D feels her mother was brainwashed. [ 118 ] D confirms that her sisters were entrusted to her in the Summer of 2012 and describes the physical premises and organization of both apartments where both she and the girls reside. She confirms that there is no television in the girls' apartment and refers to a regular back and forth between both apartments.

She oversees the homework and her sister E comes over and helps in this regard. [Agence A] also has volunteers to help with tutoring for Y and X once a week on Tuesdays at a Jewish library. [ 119 ] Either she or her husband go to school meetings or activities. [ 120 ] There is an 11 P.M. curfew for F, A and Z (12 P.M. for F and A on weekends) and all three girls have a telephone. [ 121 ] She refers to the chore list where everybody is assigned their chores and an [Agence A] worker comes and gives a hand with meals, laundry, changing beds and homework three (3) times a week from 2 P.M. to 8 or 9 P.M.

She double-checks that the girls' apartment door is locked at night. Her sisters are doing really well in school and are a bit upset about not having sleepovers but they understand. Her sisters want their friends and social lives back. [ 122 ] D refers to two (2) occasions when the mother came to their home unannounced since she has been entrusted with the children. The first time, she had to call the police because the mother was not allowed to be there and the second time, both the father and the mother entered the girls' apartment on Purim in March of 2013. The mother gave something to X who started to cry.

When D offered her mother to hold her daughter, the father told her not to. Y refused her father's request for a hug and kiss. [ 123 ] Whereas sleepovers at friends' home used to be allowed, they are now denied since the father's return. [ 124 ] D remains committed to her sisters whom she loves very much. She receives a lot of help from the community and from [Agence A] in particular.

She reports that the mother no longer wants any contacts with [Agence A] because she claims that they are responsible for her separation from the father. [ 125 ] D states that since the girls had done well in school, she brought them to the movies at Cinema A in Ville A on a Tuesday evening, which is cheap night, for a children's movie at 9 P.M. This required two (2) car trips as they were accompanied by her husband. They first dropped off A along with Y and X. [ 126 ] After dropping off the first group, she received a call from A saying their parents were there and following them.

When she arrived, the father was screaming asking why some of the girls had been left alone and indicating the police was coming. She believes her father was trying to create a problem as this was the first time she had seen her parents at this movie complex. [ 127 ] On cross-examination, D adds that a day after E left for Israel, her mother called to tell her she was back with her father. She found it hard to believe given the upcoming court date, but tried to be positive and give her mother a chance. However, she changed her mind when her sisters came to her apartment to complain.

They were all worried, even Y and X. What bothered them most was that the father would scream at Z and A. He would be at the mother's home almost every day after E left for Israel. [ 128 ] Over the last few years, only Y and X had contacts with the father. When they came home, they would bring mangoes with them and were told by their father to say that they were for them only because they went to see their dad. She claims Y and X did not enjoy seeing their father. He was trying to make the other children jealous.

He establishes rules and requires respect. [ 129 ] At first, after the children were entrusted to her, Y and X cried at night because they wanted to see their mother with whom they slept with every night until the father arrived in the mother's home in the Summer of 2012. D listened to them and explained that they were going through a hard time without ever speaking badly about their mother.

They do not talk about their father. [ 130 ] As far as she is concerned, Y and X were crying because their mother has changed. [ 131 ] D found the 11 P.M. curfew imposed by her father on her sisters to be inappropriate because it was summer and she adds that her older sisters know their limits and that there is no need to be controlling with them. [ 132 ] She believes that the father needs to be more open minded and realistic, and to love her and her sisters rather than being a rule maker.

She adds that her mother is now a changed person and that she is controlled by the father. [ 133 ] D confirms that her mother obtained a divorce judgment in 1997 but reconciled with the father before asking him to leave again after [Agence A] intervened. She was supposed to testify on behalf of her mother for the Guett . [ 134 ] D believes that her mother needs therapy and help. She adds that things are way better and calmer when the father is out of the picture. She remembers her mother saying that all visitation rights of the father should stop. Her parents were in court a lot.

All of her sisters stopped seeing their father except Y and X. [ 135 ] At the time of her testimony, D reports that al of her sisters want to remain together and that nobody wants to see their mother or their father. [ 136 ] 2.1.6 Testimony of Rabbi A, School Principal [ 137 ] He has been the Principal of A Academy, the Jewish private school attended by the children, for close to forty years. [ 138 ] He describes the girls as model students who are doing very well.

During the current school year, they have had more absences from school due to their presence in court as well as meeting social workers outside the school. [ 139 ] He has not seen the parents at parent-teacher meetings during the current school year. In prior years, the mother would come on a regular basis whereas the father came a few times.

[ 140 ] Prior to June of 2012, the mother authorized the children's participation to Sabattons . [ 141 ] During the current school year, he received a call reporting that F, A and Z were upset because of the mother's refusal to let them attend. They eventually went and their trips were subsidized by the school.

He also gave them some spending money. [ 142 ] The three youngest girls are not yet registered for the upcoming current school year and no fees were paid for the current school year (a total of $ 20,000 was due). [ 143 ] Rabbi A states that he will do anything to support the children but reminds the parties he is the school's Principal and has refused to get involved in the family dispute, referring all concerned to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 144 ] It was reported to him that the mother had presented herself at the school to see Y and X at the end of November 2012 and that the latter were very uncomfortable with that. [ 145 ] The children's report cards were filed en liasse as Exhibit D-7. [ 146 ] 2.1.7 Testimony of [Social Worker 1], Social Worker [ 147 ] She has been involved in these matters since the signalement of the Summer of 2012 and was the author of the Court Reports filed as Exhibits D-2, D-5 and D-6. [ 148 ] She has had less contacts with the mother than at the outset given that the girls don't want to see their mother.

The girls had hoped that she would revert back to the person she used to be and it has been difficult for them not to see such a change materialize. The Director wants to respect their wishes. [ 149 ] She refers to a visit between the mother and F of January 2013 which she attended. It was a difficult moment for F as her mother had difficulty hearing, receiving and responding to what she was saying. [ 150 ] The older children have a need for individual counselling as they have lost their trust in the mother whom they feel has abandoned them.

She foresees counselling for the mother as well, and family therapy eventually. [ 151 ] As for the father, she notes that the children are uncomfortable in his presence because of his constant questioning which throws them off balance. They fear not giving the right responses and not pleasing their parents. [ 152 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] speaks to the girls 3 to 10 times a week and is in very close contact with them. Each of the girls is followed by an [Agence A] social worker. [ 153 ] She is not concerned about the children's living environment.

Everybody has come together to make sure that the girls can remain together.

New beds have been provided by [Agence A] which also provides a resource worker fifteen to twenty-five hours a week. [ 154 ] The parents have put a lot of focus on Y and X and the other girls have felt left out and are very angry and saddened. [ 155 ] The mother has stated: « if you love me, you'll love your father also », which brought the following reply from X: « if that's the case and you love me, then you'll have to love my sisters also .» [ 156 ] The mother's unannounced visit at school put Y in a difficult position in front of her peers and made her very sad, angry and frustrated. [ 157 ] The father is regularly at the mother's home when Mrs. [Social Worker 1] calls and often speaks for the mother and dominates the conversation. [ 158 ] Whereas the mother used to accept the girls' request for sleepovers and participating in Sabattons , she now refuses on the basis that if they are entrusted to D, they should remain there. [ 159 ] The social worker has discussed counselling with the mother who does not believe she has been a victim of conjugal violence and is no longer accessing [Agence A] services. [ 160 ] As for the father, he denies the allegations and does not see how he is responsible for how children react to him.

He believes that the girls should be thankful that he is back with their mother. Therapy is not foreseeable in his case as he has little insight and acknowledgement. [ 161 ] The Director trusts D and her judgment and although she is not asking for it, it is felt that she would benefit from occasional respite.

As for E, the parents have expressed concerns in her regard. [ 162 ] On cross-examination, she reports that Y and X have expressed their fear of the father as they prepare for questions he may ask them. [ 163 ] Both of these children have been exposed to the tense and conflictual environment between the father and their older siblings whom they are worried about. [ 164 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] reports that they are true to their own feelings and able to assert themselves, and that they are not reporting their elder siblings' words. [ 165 ] D does not speak negatively about the parents who have respected the decision of the three (3) eldest children not to have contacts with them.

All five (5) girls maintain that they want to stay together and there is a strong bond between them.

[ 166 ] According to the social worker, the children have been making efforts by receiving therapy contrary to their parents. She believes that the parents' position that the older girls' position of not having contacts with them should be accepted is not a viable solution and that all five children should be treated equally. [ 167 ] 2.2 Evidence of the father [ 168 ] 2.2.1 Testimony of L [ 169 ] He has been D's husband for 5 years and is twenty-four years old when he testifies. He has known the family for almost 8 years.

He is the superintendent of the building where he lives with D and their child. [ 170 ] During the parents' separation, he used to do the physical chores in the mother's home as the male figure in the household. [ 171 ] He enjoys taking care of the girls whom he considers as his brothers. The landlord has told him he has no objection to their taking over the lease of the apartment occupied the girls. [ 172 ] He is a dual citizen of Canada and of the USA but does not yet have a Québec driver's license. This resulted in his receiving a ticket 2 years ago and he has not yet resolved the situation. [ 173 ] Mr.

L confirms that Y and X don’t want to go back with their parents and say they think their mother is dead. He replies that maybe they should think she is on a vacation for a while. [ 174 ] Y has cried in his presence and stated that she didn't want to see her father and that she was forced by the Court to see him because she was too young. [ 175 ] He used to have a beautiful relationship with the mother but she has not spoken to him since the father's return. He is aware that the mother had sought the Guett and was even in court in 2008.

She even told him that the father was making her sick because he never let her move on with her life. [ 176 ] He has no relationship with the father who has ignored him and never welcomed him to the family. The father has said to D: « I curse you D because you didn't ask my permission to get married .» He met the father for the first time in court and then at his wedding. [ 177 ] Since he got married in 2008, the father saw Y and X 2 or 3 hours once a month but he never saw F, A and Z.

He once saw him tell E to go back to her room when she asked him what he was doing in the mother's home when he had come to pick up Y and X. [ 178 ] 2.2.2 Testimony of the father [ 179 ] He is fifty-four years old when he testifies.

He claims that further to the divorce in 1997, he had a very good relationship with his five (5) children (Z was born on [...], 1998) and had nice contacts with them. [ 180 ] Photographs of activities he engaged in with the children are filed en liasse as Exhibit F-4. [ 181 ] As a result, the father claims not to understand why the children are afraid of him. [ 182 ] He adds that the three (3) older girls stopped seeing him because the mother wanted to reduce his access rights, as he did not want to give her the Guett .

He said that Judge William Fraiberg (see Exhibit F-3) gave them the choice and he doesn't understand why the girls (D, E, F and

A) did not want to see him. [ 183 ] The father did not read all of the Court Report filed as Exhibit D-2 because once he saw it was full of lies, he stopped. He never tied or hit his children or spoke bad words to them. He compares their behaviours in September of 2012 to a rebellion. [ 184 ] He claims to have made several attempts to reconcile with the mother until they started dating in June and July of 2012. The situation blew up when the children heard about it.

They were expecting him to give the mother the Guett and were « cranked up for the Guett .» [ 185 ] E, F, A and Z told him to give their mother the Guett . He states that he loved the mother and did not want to do so. [ 186 ] He decided to reunite the family for its best interest and wanted the mother to stop the family from bleeding so to speak. [ 187 ] The Discontinuance of Proceedings from the mother's claim of July 10, 2012 was filed as Exhibit F-6 ( en liasse ).

After this proceeding was filed in Court, the father claims he had more guts to come to the mother's home and slept over twice. [ 188 ] He recalls going to the park with the mother and A to talk about the latter's behaviours and her responding that it was her body and that he could not tell her what to do. They did not come to an understanding.

He was afraid she would be expelled from her religious school for seeing boys. [ 189 ] The night of his second sleepover, F, Z and A were upset at the mother because she had taken away the television, Internet and their cell phones due to the fact that they were speaking badly about the father. [ 190 ] When he came to plug the television in to watch the news, Z ran towards him to prevent him from doing so while saying it had been taken away.

He denies having twisted her arm or done anything else to her. [ 191 ] A started arguing with the mother while Z was filming them with her iPod . [ 192 ] The father denies having locked the doors and having spoken to Z and A upon their return that night.

[ 193 ] After this incident, the parents started seeing each other outside the home. [ 194 ] The father refers to a second appearance in Court at the en of July 2012 to officialize the Discontinuance of Proceedings . [ 195 ] During the first days of August, the police arrived at the mother's home with a woman from the Director of Youth Protection and removed Y and X from the home in the presence of the parents who were shocked. [ 196 ] Y told X to bring her things and the children did not offer any resistance. [ 197 ] A, F and Z were not at home at that time.

The next day, the parents learned that the children were at D's. [ 198 ] The mother went to D's to see the children but was told to go away or the police would be called. [ 199 ] At the time he testifies, the father is not living with the mother but at the maternal grandmother's home. He states that if he is the problem, the children should be entrusted to the mother. [ 200 ] When asked how he will regain the trust of the elder children, he replies that he has no power over this. He claims to know that he doesn't need any therapy but is willing to go to their therapy and help them.

He denies that he is controlling but wishes to see his children raised within the norms. He trusts the Principal of the children's school, Rabbi A. [ 201 ] On cross-examination, he denies having any responsibility for this situation without knowing whose responsibility it is. [ 202 ] He claims to have had a perfect relationship with the three (3) older girls until the Superior Court judgment of June 5, 2008 (Exhibit F-3) after which he was not allowed into the home. [ 203 ] During his separation from the mother, the father never worried about how the latter was raising the kids as he trusted her.

In the Summer of 2012, he denies making any comments about the girls wearing shorts as pyjamas and claims the mother told them to wear pants. [ 204 ] He states that he stopped seeing E because the mother wanted to use her as leverage for the Guett which the father refused. He did not want to divorce, loves his wife and refused to give the Guett due to his religious convictions. [ 205 ] He filed separation proceedings prior to the divorce because the mother had left for Israel with D and E to see her parents.

He adds that the mother was depressed because of her own parents. [ 206 ] When confronted to the Superior Court judgment of March 6, 2008 rendered by Judge Ann-Marie Trahan, in which it is reported he questioned the mother's parenting of the children, he states that the mother and he were clashing together at the time, the mother being pushed by [Agence A] and her parents. He blames his mother-in-law for the breakdown of his marriage. [ 207 ] According to the father, D lied on a lot of points, including his pinning up the mother to a door with his forearm. E also lied about the incident with the curtain rod.

Z also lied about being tied in ropes and put in the trunk of the care. He denies having ever raised his hand on the mother or the children. [ 208 ] In a nutshell, the father claims that every incident reported by his daughters has been fabricated although he doesn't know who instructed them to lie.

As for Y and X, he adds that they have been influenced and taken hostage by their sisters. [ 209 ] He refers to the good times he had with Y and X and that they have been influenced by the social worker. [ 210 ] He objected to the five youngest girls sleeping over at E's apartment and claims that minors should be directed in the right way. [ 211 ] The father attributes the responsibility for the refusal of the girls attending a Sabatton in New York City to the mother who had advised him of girls sneaking out in previous years.

He agreed with her position in Court. [ 212 ] He does not agree that the children be entrusted to D as the girls would be better in a foster home. As far as he is concerned, [Agence A] is part of the litigation and not a solution. [ 213 ] The father does not trust D's judgment to take care of the girls or authorize sleepovers as D does not respect Shabbat by driving on that day and does not eat kosher . [ 214 ] He also believes that D's husband, L, is not a responsible person for the children as he gets drunk with D and has a lot of speeding tickets.

He claims he painted the mother's house to sleep with D. [ 215 ] His plan is to get the children back to adherence to religious values (« to help them be in the right path as God asks us to do »). [ 216 ] He claims to have found Exhibit M-1( Sperm Donor's Chair ) on the chair where he sits during Shabbat . It affected him a lot personally and he found it unacceptable and disrespectful. [ 217 ] The father acknowledges that in the summer of 2012, there was opposition to him from the first day he was the girls (« we don't want you at home, give the Guett »).

He considers the Guett to be a personal thing between himself and the mother. He denies having turned E's room into a storage area. He adds that she was never kicked out of the home. [ 218 ] He also denies having said that there (3) were three rotten apples in the basket and that the two (2) other should be taken out. [ 219 ] The father is on welfare and has not paid child support since 2002. He lives with his mother. He dropped out of optometry school in university after completing one year in 2005-2006 because of the court proceedings.

[ 220 ] He will accept to participate in an anger management program if it is required after the whole family has sat with a psychologist and the latter determines it. [ 221 ] He wishes that Y and X be entrusted to the mother claiming that it will be easier to start with the younger children and that maybe that will make the other ones come back to their mother's home with the help of a therapist. [ 222 ] The father claims that the Director of Youth Protection is controlling and is destroying the family.

He went to the Director's offices 2 or 3 times at the most and he agreed to talk about his personal life to Mrs. [Social Worker 1] but when she said she could not guarantee it would remain confidential, he refused. She stated that he was not cooperating and showed him the door. [ 223 ] 2.2.3 Testimony of M [ 224 ] She is the paternal grandmother and is seventy-six years of age when she testifies. She used to baby-sit the children when they were small. [ 225 ] She states that she gets along well with the children. She saw F and Z at the hospital at the end of August 2012 after being struck by a cyclist.

Y and X sent her a get well note, filed as Exhibit F-8. The two (2) youngest children call their father [nickname A]. [ 226 ] She denies ever having been violent or tied up the children when they were younger. She confirms that the father has been living with her since the parents' divorce. She would see the children every two (2) weeks after the divorce. [ 227 ] The paternal grandmother knew that the maternal grandmother wanted the mother to obtain the Guett . She blames the couple's problems on the maternal grandmother who insisted on their obtaining the civil divorce.

She acknowledges that the children have been well raised, are polite, tell the truth and have no behavioural issues. [ 228 ] At one time, she accused the mother of assault and the police had to intervene. She had to take care of 2 of the children (D and

E) with the father when the mother suffered form depression and visited with her family in Israel. [ 229 ] She claims not to have known about he reconciliation between the parents but has been to court before and was in the same room with the parents and their attorneys prior to her testimony, although she claims not having been involved in the discussions. [ 230 ] 2.3 Evidence of the mother [ 231 ] 2.3.1 Testimony of the mother [ 232 ] The mother is forty-five years of age when she testifies.

She married the father in 1989 and they were living in Israel until they came to Canada at the end of 1990. [ 233 ] They lived in the paternal grandmother's apartment. After D's birth in [...] of 1991, the mother's parents came to visit and saw she was living poorly. The father was working as an estimator and they could not make ends meet. [ 234 ] She found herself caught between a rock and a hard place, namely respecting her mother versus her husband. When E was born in 1994, her parents were even more upset and she suffered from post partum depression.

There were a lot of arguments in the family. [ 235 ] She was charged with assault after pushing the paternal grandmother when she was pregnant with F. She was subject to a restraining order for one (1) year. [ 236 ] The mother went to Israel in 1994 to visit with her parents and left D and E in the care of the father and of the paternal grandmother. She wanted to divorce the father as well as to obtain custody of D and E in Israel. She returned to Canada in February of 1995 so as not to lose her immigration rights.

She leased her own apartment and F was born in [...]. [ 237 ] The parents agreed to divorce amicably in 1997 and were like good friends but with a distance, as the mother liked her privacy. Z was born in [...] of 1998. The father had visitation rights pursuant to the Superior Court judgment of November 27, 2002 (Exhibit F-2) and the mother claims that the children were very happy with these visits.

As the years went on, the older girls wanted to stop visiting with the father which led to another Superior Court judgment (Exhibit F-3) on June 5, 2008. [ 238 ] She acknowledges that the father was a lousy provider for the family and her children urged her to obtain the Guett so she could move on with her life. [ 239 ] The mother never heard about the children being tied up in ropes before. She also denies the father having been violent with her although they did push each other twenty years ago.

She also does not remember the refrigerator being locked to prevent her from eating. [ 240 ] In May of 2012, the mother was recovering from a bout with Bell's palsy and felt her children were not sensitive to her feelings and to her illness (« mom, you're really ugly, go see Dad, he will give you the Guett »). [ 241 ] The rekindling of her relationship with the father started in June of 2012 when he came to see her and told her he was there for the sake of the children. She asked him if he loved her and he replied that that would come with time.

She loved the father but thought he hated her. [ 242 ] She opened her heart to him, having found it difficult to raise the 7 girls alone. She would love for him to be there to help her. Her Bell's palsy reappeared in January of 2013 because of the stress resulting from her daughters being removed and the father was there to support her. [ 243 ] The mother describes D's going out drinking to a pub with her husband on Thursday evenings, E being out of the path of religion, F requiring more attention because of learning difficulties, and A and Z wanting iPhones and iPods and coming home late after

going out with boys, « getting caught with their lies .» [ 244 ] Their relationship in the Summer of 2012 was secret for one month and she was able to open up after E left for Israel at the beginning of July. [ 245 ] She confirms that the father came to sleep twice at her home and that they went to the hotel once on July 11 th .

She said that she would be back in the morning and had her cell phone but in fact, she could not be contacted. [ 246 ] The mother corroborates the father's version regarding the incident with Z concerning the television and claims the back door was open when A and Z returned home that night. [ 247 ] As for the Guett , she wanted it but adds that the maternal grandmother wanted it even more. The children were excited and wanted her to obtain it.

She retained the services of a famous lawyer and was interviewed on TV, with the girls there to provide moral support for her which they gladly did. [ 248 ] The father asked her to postpone the hearing scheduled for the Guett on July 28, 2012 and the mother wanted to desist from the proceedings. The relevant document was filed on July 10 th (Exhibit F-6). [ 249 ] She anticipated her daughters' reaction and claims she didn't know how to do it better. She believes that their reaction had a lot to do with the Guett . The children have been oppositional and have refused to accept the father back into the family.

Every day brought more rebellion and bad words. [ 250 ] This is the second time the Director of Youth Protection is involved with the family, the other time being in 2001 when she and the father had an argument because the television was on during Shabbat and they were cursing at each other. [ 251 ] During her separation from the father, she disciplined the children and talked to them a lot. She tried to do her best while accommodating their tastes. There were what she calls shocking incidents because of non religious friends. [ 252 ] She does not love D's husband but is 100% with her if she loves him.

She had concerns about the people A was seeing. She took away her cell phone because of the bad language which she used when talking to her father. She did not appreciate the words A used concerning the father (« f word, disgusting, stupid, sperm donor »). D and E, who are not religious, have influenced their sisters. [ 253 ] The mother was afraid the girls would get expelled from their school.

She had them admitted to their current school to have them integrate more religion. [ 254 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] told her that she would handle the school registration because she does not have parental authority. [ 255 ] She feels she is being punished for loving the father. The system is corrupted and the Director of Youth Protection controlling. They wanted to break her down by taking Y and X away from her knowing she is especially close to them. [ 256 ] The mother describes her relationship with the father as being more friends than lovers.

She states that she did not change anything when the father came in the home. F, A and Z changed when she told them she was no longer going to court for the Guett . [ 257 ] She heard that E wanted to move out because she was reconciling with the father and respected her wish. E said she didn't want to live in the house if the father was around to control them. Y and X were happy that the parents were back together. [ 258 ] When she met the children after the entrustment to D, they were all over her case and screaming at her for reconciling with the father. [ 259 ] She admits having been to see Y and X at school.

X was sick whereas Y cried and told her she didn't want to see her. She does not believe that the children do not want to see her. [ 260 ] The mother misses all of the children, including D and E, even if she has issues with their behaviour. She does not want her children to be alcoholics or smoke marijuana like D. [ 261 ] She is worried that D's husband sleeps with her other daughters.

She is concerned that Y and X will go clubbing and do drugs if they are not returned to her. [ 262 ] Contrary to the father, the mother wishes for all 4 girls to be entrusted to her in her home and says that her and the father argue about this. She wants to move to a larger apartment. [ 263 ] She is not controlled by the father and has decided everything on her own.

The father never put his hand over her mouth while telling her to be quiet, nor did he threaten the children with foster home placement. [ 264 ] The mother states that Mrs. [Social Worker 1] encourages her to help D whereas she feels she can handle the girls on her own. [ 265 ] She met with X on July 31 st at the Director's offices and claims the child wants to come back and live with her. She gave the child a letter from the father without telling Mrs. [Social Worker 1].

She also met with Y on August 2 nd and discussed her coming back home with her, to which Y replied « it's like in a book, you can't skip chapters, you're going too fast mum .» [ 266 ] On cross-examination, she talks of her intent to reconcile with the father while giving space to her children to come back. They are her priority and the father comes second. They have not reconciled to live together but are just good friends. [ 267 ] She acknowledges that she wanted the Guett to move on with her life and remarry. She was like a chained woman without the

Guett . The children were aware of this, as they were aware of the father's proceedings to prevent them from leaving the province and of the fact that he wasn't paying support for her. [ 268 ] She admits having been in confrontation mode with the father for ten years. [ 269 ] Like the father, the mother alleges that the older children are lying with respect to conjugal violence.

She adds that they have been brainwashed by the maternal grandmother, D and [Agence A] because of the therapy they have followed there. [ 270 ] At the graduation at the girls' school in 2013, she asked Mrs. [Social Worker 1] if the father could come and was told that the children wanted to see her but not the father, yet he accompanied her because he wanted to be there. [ 271 ] According to the mother, D is alienating Y and X from her and the father. She is angry at her and believes she is the last person who should foster these children. She adds « it's like they are taking care of each other ».

D was a temporary solution for the girls and the goal was to find a foster home for them. [ 272 ] The mother claims she has not changed and that her kids just don't want her to be happy. She admits that she should not have invited the father to sleepover. Moreover, she should not have discussed the Guett so much with the children. She admits that they were shocked and it was asking too much of them.

She hopes the Court will forgive her. [ 273 ] She recognizes that in 2008, Z and A did not like to see the father as they felt he was controlling. [ 274 ] She also admits that when she went to the school to see Y in the Fall of 2012, Y was uncomfortable with her doing that. [ 275 ] 2.4 Counter-Proof of the Director [ 276 ] 2.4.1 Testimony of [Social Worker 1], Social worker [ 277 ] Since the month of April 2013, she has provided the parents with information concerning the children. [ 278 ] There was another incident at a movie theatre where the parents did not agree with two (2) of the children being there and she received a letter from the father's lawyer in this regard. [ 279 ] The majority of her contacts have been with the mother who has been requesting to see the children. [ 280 ] X visited with the mother on July 31 st and received the following from the father given to her by the mother: $ 5, some almonds and a note: « if you want to know the rest of the story, call me ».

She went to the bathroom to cry as she felt as if the father was trying to bribe her. X said she wanted to see the mother again but changed her mind the next day. She was angry and confused about the visit. [ 281 ] As for Y's visit with the mother on August 2 nd , the mother asked where X was at the outset. Y replied : « I know how X feels, it's difficult for her to express her feelings and she says things you want to hear .»

Y made it clear to her mother that she wasn't there to talk about her father. [ 282 ] According to Mrs. [Social Worker 1], the children feel that their mother is no longer there and has difficulty in hearing their emotions and desires. The children have urged the mother to speak to D but she has replied that the situation will be resolved at Court. [ 283 ] Both Y and X have maintained that they do not want further contacts with the mother for the time being.

They want it the way it used to be, namely their old mum prior to her reconciling with the father. [ 284 ] The only need expressed by the mother has been for the children to be entrusted back to her. She insists that there is no need for support or therapy for conjugal violence. [ 285 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1] stresses that the parents should demonstrate openness and accountability instead of saying that the children are lying. [ 286 ] 3.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 287 ] 3.1 The Director [ 288 ] The Director's lawyer argues that the evidence is consistent to the effect that there were incidents of physical and emotional abuse of the father towards the mother and the children in the home when the parents were living together prior to their separation.

There were arguments between the parents and the father was denigrating with the mother and the children. [ 289 ] When the parents decided to reconcile in the Summer of 2012, the rules in the mother's home suddenly changed (for example, the children's sleepwear, no more television and Internet ) and the children did not benefit from an adjustment period. They were not prepared for such a radical change and their reaction was justified. [ 290 ] For 10 years, the mother told the children that the father did not want to give her the Guett and requested their support to go to Court with her.

She is now saying that he is a good man and that they should respect him. [ 291 ] The older the children got, the more difficult their relationship with the father became. At one point in time, they all stopped seeing the father. [ 292 ] The mother is not protecting the children from the father and their best interest has become secondary for her. Although the mother is entitled to her life, this should not be detrimental to the children. The mother claims she will see the children when the father is not there, but the latter has a very strong influence over her.

[ 293 ] The Superior Court judgment of March 2008 rendered by Judge Anne-Marie Trahan (Exhibit D-8) gives a true picture of the conflictual relationship between the parents and is consistent with the children's testimony that the father was always badmouthing the mother. [ 294 ] The Director's attorney also raises the parents' conduct during the hearing of these Motions for Protection , alleging that they do not acknowledge their responsibility for this situation, that they contest the children's participation in many activities and that they refuse that Y and X receive therapeutic support from [Agence A] when the mother received such support during her 10 years separation from the father. [ 295 ] As for the measures sought by the Director, the entrustment to D requires a lot of organization but even before the Director's involvement, the children went to D's.

D represents the best solution at this point in time. Y and X want to remain with their older sisters. The foster care suggested by the parents will break up the girls and is not in the best interest of the children. [ 296 ] The girls are working well together, have no behavioural issues and are doing well at school.

The only people confronting them are the parents. [ 297 ] All the children are in therapy on a weekly basis and the Director suggests that therapy might help the parents understand what the children are going through. [ 298 ] The Director's attorney argues that all the measures sought are justified and that the parents' claim that the social worker has made no effort to reconnect them with the children is unfounded.

Indeed, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] has attempted to have the parents understand the reality of the children which they have refused to do. [ 299 ] 3.2 The mother [ 300 ] The mother's attorney submits that there is no evidence that the security and development of the children is compromised, nor that there was conjugal violence 10 years ago. [ 301 ] There is nothing to suggest the mother has done anything wrong and her going from hero to zero within 1 week defies logic. [ 302 ] A and Z have issues with the father and E's letter to [Agence A] started the ball rolling.

The older girls have decided to punish the mother for spending time with the father. [ 303 ] The mother tried to rectify the situation early on by agreeing not to see the father when she would be with the children. [ 304 ] The mother's lawyer disputes Z's version of the television incident, arguing that Z attacked the father and not vice versa. [ 305 ] D is fuelling the conflict and the children are not doing well in her care.

More harm is being done to them by living with D and her husband. [ 306 ] The Motions for Protection should be dismissed against the mother and her children entrusted back to her. [ 307 ] 3.3 The father [ 308 ] The father's lawyer denies that there is any recent declaration which establishes the father's violence or physical abuse towards his children. On the contrary, it is the adolescent girls who treat him disrespectfully. [ 309 ] As for the incident with the television involving Z, she raises contradictions in both Z's and A's testimonies to claim that their versions are not credible.

Z's version is also contradicted by the father. In any event, this remains an isolated incident which cannot be deemed to constitute physical abuse. [ 310 ] The father's attorney also disputes the claim of a serious risk of physical abuse towards Y and X given in particular that both children have maintained constant contacts with the father over the past few years and that he has never been violent towards them. [ 311 ] She also refutes that the children have suffered psychological ill-treatment because of their exposure to harmful behaviour.

She speaks of an excellent, affectionate, loving and independent mother who wishes to reconcile with the father to restore harmony within the family which is important for the children's lives. [ 312 ] The oldest children do not fear the father, they just don’t appreciate the rules he establishes. There is no conjugal violence as the children are not exposed to a breakup but to a reconciliation. [ 313 ] The father's lawyer acknowledges that the children have been exposed to the issues of the Guett sought by the mother which played an important role in the family dynamics.

The older children perceive the reconciliation as the mother abandoning her quest and battle, and this surprises and disappoints them. It bothers them that their father does not apologize for his actions in the past. [ 314 ] She admits that in this regard, the family may require help in its communication with the older children but this is not a matter where youth protection involvement is required.

The State should not intervene in the reconciliation process of this family. [ 315 ] As for the rules which the mother imposed further to her reconciling with the father, they do not constitute harmful behaviour for the children pursuant to Subsection 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act . They are a legitimate exercise of parental authority. [ 316 ] The differences in views between the parents and the older children are typical of normal family disputes. [ 317 ] The Director of Youth Protection is drawing an inference of ill-treatment based on a presumption of a distant past of this family.

[ 318 ] The father's attorney requests that the children be returned to the mother who has all of the parental capacities required to handle their care. The home environment currently provided by D and her husband is not appropriate and safe, and no supervision is provided. [ 319 ] 3.4 The children [ 320 ] The children's lawyer claims that if the Director of Youth Protection did not take action before, it is because the mother took the appropriate measures to protect the children. [ 321 ] He blames the reconciliation of the parents and not their breakup for this situation.

This 180 degree turn by the mother has brought back memories for the older children who, except for Y and X, testified as to how they have lived through this experience in their own individual way. Their testimonies confirm the events set out in the Court Report (Exhibit D-2). [ 322 ] The mother is caught between a rock and a hard place: she follows the father's wishes but she has the heart of a mother. The children request the mother they used to have. [ 323 ] The father has never recognized that there is any problem whatsoever.

His relationship with the older children did not last for a long time because he attempted to control them at a distance. [ 324 ] The children's attorney claims that the parents are still together although they state that they live separately. [ 325 ] The children do not have to suffer what the mother endured with the father over the years and are entitled to lead a normal life. They have been hurt psychologically by their parents' attitude.

When E expressed her disagreement with the reconciliation, she was told to leave the family home. [ 326 ] He adds that the parents have only caused trouble since the entrustment of the children to their eldest sister D over a year ago. The have repeatedly objected to the children participating in certain activities and the mother has breached the prohibition of unsupervised contacts on a number of occasions. The parents have merged with one another in opposition to the children. [ 327 ] Y and X recently asked to meet with their mother to see if things have changed over the past year.

The mother claims they were happy and want to return to her home. However, their lawyer informed the Court that they told him that the mother did not listen to them. [ 328 ] The children's lawyer notes that the notion of bribes is often raised by the children, as evidenced by the note of the father given to X by the mother as well as the mangoes he gave to Y and X which were not to be shared with their sisters. [ 329 ] The children live very well together and have a strong bond. It is not in their interest that they be placed in 2 or 3 different foster homes. They wish that their entrustment to D be maintained.

The parents have responsibilities and obligations towards their children rather than strict legal rights. The younger children may express their choice and the Court may take it into account. [ 330 ] Each of the children does not want to see the father. They love their mother but wish to keep a distance for the time being because of her sudden change of heart regarding the father in the Summer of 2012.

Although the physical abuse alleged 10 years ago dates far back, the arm twisting incident involving Z and her subsequently leaving the home with A to return a few hours later and find the doors to the house locked are evidence of physical abuse and of psychological violence. The parents have created a poisoned environment over the last year and now accuse the olde

[…]