2022 QCCQ 7454, 2022 QCCQ 7454

Protection de la jeunesse — 223197 2022 QCCQ 7454 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 505-41-009971-203 DATE: April 27, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANNICK BERGERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 2010 Child ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of the Youth Protection A Applicant and A and B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 YPA) ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The four children are currently living with their father since provisional measures were ordered in September. Numerous recommendations were also made at that time. A regular calendar of contacts with their mother and grandmother was to be scheduled. Very few contacts took place.

Some of the children have not seen their grandmother since September despite having spent more than a year under her care. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) is involved in the family following the admissions by the parties that the children were exposed to psychological-ill treatment, serious risk of sexual abuse and a situation of sexual abuse for the oldest child by the father. The parties have admitted the situation by signing an agreement that was homologated and declared executory by the Court on March 23, 2021.

The mother is also living with addictions issues and lack of personal stability. [ 3 ] All children were then living with third parties. The oldest was entrusted to a foster family and the three youngest were entrusted to the kinship foster family of their maternal grandmother. Supervised visits were to be organized with each of the parents. Many services were ordered or recommended by the Court. [ 4 ] After a difficult period during which the visits were halted due to the father’s abusive behaviors with the case aid supervising the visits, an agreement was reached.

The parenting worker, whom the father trusted, accepted to supervise the visits. From then, the father was thorough and present at each of the visits with the children. He was involved in his follow-up, more particularly by participating to a five-day intensive program tailor-made for him during the summer by the Family and Wellness Center.

He was also collaborating greatly to the services offered by his parenting worker Ms. [social worker 2] and his traditional worker Mr. [social worker 3]. [ 5 ] The family’s situation is characterized by the open and intense hostility demons-trated by the father towards all the representatives of the Director of Youth Protection. There is also a strained relationship between the father and the maternal family. The father uses social media to display his anger towards both the Director and the mother.

His publications are particularly violent and insulting to the clinical supervisor working for A Community Services and authorized to act by the Director in the family situation.

[ 6 ] The Director is recommending that the Court entrust the children to the kinship foster family of their maternal grandmother and her partner with supervised regular visits with their father. The Director is recommending many services to all the parties involved, more particularly for specific issues for the parents. [ 7 ] The mother was present by Teams at the first day of the hearing. She testified that she agreed with the recommendations and was willing to start working with an addiction worker. She did not follow through.

The second day of the hearing, she was absent due to sickness and was represented by her attorney. [ 8 ] The father is contesting the recommendations. His greatest wish is to continue to take care of his children. He clearly stated that the visits with the grandmother should be supervised. He is requesting a change in clinical supervisor or a transfer to another team outside of the community of Kahnawake. [ 9 ] There are four children. The eldest was born as a female, Y. However, to respect the child’s identity gender, the Court will refer to him as Y. He is fourteen years old.

He is benefiting from services from the A Clinic. He wants to continue to receive such services. It is very important for him that his follow-up remain confidential. Y wants to remain entrusted to his father. He does not want any visitations with his mother or grandmother. He has started a psychological assessment and is willing to finish it and follow recommendations. His latest grades at school are excellent and he is proud to succeed. He was the only child present during the hearing. He also testified to express his wishes. [ 10 ] X is twelve years old.

As he is starting to become a teenager, he is becoming more oppositional. The use of screen has been an issue. He teases his younger siblings who perceive him as bullying them. He wants to remain entrusted to his father. X has not seen his mother or his grandmother since he went back with his dad in September. [ 11 ] Z is eight years old. He has been to some of the visits with the maternal family in order to make sure that his younger brother stay safe according to his dad. His younger brother C just turned six years old in […].

He started attending A School in September. [ 12 ] The attorney representing the two youngest children is acting according to a legal mandate. She mentioned that their father is fulfilling their basic physical needs. Since they do not lack food, she believes that they should remain under his care. [ 13 ] After a two-day hearing, the Court took the case under advisement on March 24, 2022. [ 14 ] FIRST MATTER IN DISPUTE: Should the Court intervene with regards to recommending a change of clinical supervisor? [ 15 ] The father has been in conflict with all the caseworkers assigned to his file.

The change of clinical supervisor will not solve the issue. The father needs to accept to work with the representatives of the Director despite his own issues with authority. [ 16 ] The Director had to switch caseworkers three times due to the father’s insults, assaults, or generally violent behavior. For that reason, the clinical supervisor Mr. [social worker 2] is always present during the interactions with the father, including meeting in presence or phone conversations. The father alleges to have “a past” with Mr. [social worker 2] that justifies him being triggered by him.

He displays violent and sexual remarks towards the supervisor, in front of him, at court and on social media. [ 17 ] In June, the Director had to petition the Court to halt the visits. The father was displaying abusive behaviors with the case aids who supervised the visits. [ 18 ] The father is suggesting that the Director from Chateauguay assume the follow-up for the children or that the other clinical supervisor be responsible. [ 19 ] In making a decision concerning a child, the Court must take into account many factors: YPA -

Section 3: In addition to the moral, intellectual, emotional and material needs of the child, his age, health, personality and family environment and the other aspects of his situation must be taken into account. In the case of a Native child, the preservation of the child’s cultural identity must also be taken into account. [ 20 ] In addition to the above mentioned dispositions, the Court must also take into account a new federal law that came into force recently, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families [1] .

More importantly, this Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the children and the principle of cultural continuity. [ 21 ] In assessing the best interest of children, Section 10 (2) of the Act mentions that primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture. [ 22 ] The Act contains provisions with regards to services provided to the families as well.

Section 11 is to the effect that child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that takes into account the child’s needs and takes into account the child’s culture. [ 23 ] That being said, it appears that the best interest of the children, all of the A territory, continue to be followed-up by A Community Services. The preservation of their cultural identity commands that they receive services from the A community, especially considering that such services are available.

Their caseworker is from their community, the children attend school on A territory, and both of their parents are […] and part of the community. The services offered to them respect their background and their culture. The Court concludes that the father’s request would fulfill his own needs, but not the children’s best interests. [ 24 ] As for a change of clinical supervisor, the Court will not intervene in the management of social services. The father has had

conflicts with three different caseworkers and has even assaulted one of them. Some of the case aids had to be removed because of his violent attitude. He displayed anger at the expert who wrote the psychosexual assessment. He displayed impatience directed to the lawyer from the Director who cross-examined him. The common point of all of the situations is Mr. B himself. Removing Mr. [social worker 2] will not solve the issue, as it is clear that Mr. B has a problem with whoever is representing social services.

It is part of the father’s objectives to deal with his trauma to be able to at least be civil with the representatives of social services. The Court is encouraging him to do so. [ 25 ] SECOND MATTER IN DISPUTE: Which living environment is the most likely to end the situation by which the security or the development of the children is in danger? [ 26 ] The father is struggling to understand and respect the emotional needs of the children, namely their needs to maintain a relationship with the maternal side of the family.

The father is keeping them away from the maternal family on unjustified basis based on his own history and issues with them. The children will be entrusted to the kinship foster family of their grandmother to allow the father to focus on his treatment for his own recovery. [ 27 ] The Director is involved due to the parent’s behaviors, namely, the mother’s addiction and lack of stability. Since the mother is not contesting the present measures, the focus is directed on the father. [ 28 ] The father displays some positive characteristics. He is present and involved. He clearly wants the best for his children.

They attend school every day and their grades are good. The father is affectionate with them. He participates well in the services offered by his parenting support worker. He is generally respectful with her. [ 29 ] The father underwent a psychosexual expertise by Dr. Marc Ravart. The psychometric evaluation reveals that people with similar profiles “are typically guarded and suspicious of the motives of others, controlling, and often in conflict with people who symbolize authority” [2] . The professional identified that the father present traits of paranoid and antisocial personality.

He lacks insight and often blames others for his problems. The father does not recognize that inappropriate gestures on his children such as pulling their pants constitute sexual abuse, because of his lack of intention. The professional concluded that his global level of risk towards his children is moderate in regards of sexual abuse, but higher in regards if physical and psychological abuse. Dr.

Ravart formulated the following recommendations to decrease the risk: The father should continue the counselling, participate to abuse prevention counselling, improve his parental skills and try to find better ways to resolve the conflict with the maternal family. The father is also encouraged by Dr.

Ravart to acquire a better insight of his own role in the chain of event and find a way to work in collaboration with the Director. [ 30 ] The father has not followed through the recommendations with regards to his trauma history, invoking various justification: work, difficulties to find a psychologist, lack of time and babysitter.

His absence of work on that matter is impacting his relationships with other people, namely, the level of trust, more particularly with the Director and the maternal family. [ 31 ] The father is depriving the children from maintaining a relationship with the maternal family, despite a very clear court order. He has great difficulties accepting his oldest children decision with regard to his gender. The father is capable of taking care of his children with regards to their physical needs. However, their emotional needs are yet to be respected.

For instance, the youngest children spent 13 months with their grandmother. Since they have been back to their father’s care, they have not visited her more than two or three times. The father expressed many justifications: the kids do not want to go, the grandmother does not respect the rules by Public health relating to Covid prevention, he is afraid that the mother will take the children away. The father is not respecting a very clear court order.

Moreover, the court order was based on the attachment of the children with their grandmother, who is also their previous caregiver. [ 32 ] The father does not seem to realize that encouraging the relationship with the maternal family is positive for the children’s well- being and development. He is transposing his own feelings and beliefs on the children. As the children spend more time with him, their ambivalence disappears and the children display the same opinions as their father. The Court cannot ignore that the mother has personal issues and has not done much yet to solve her personal problems.

However, the context of supervision is ensuring that the children maintain a connection with her in a secure environment. [ 33 ] After a “baggy” of substances was found in the grandmother’s house, the Director has made it very clear that the mother could not be living under the same roof as the children. The grandmother has respected such demand and has made the choice of putting her priority towards her grandchildren. When the children were living with her, she offered a good environment. She encouraged the children to visit their father, putting her own feelings apart to respect the children’s needs.

Although Y claims that he does not want to see his grandmother, the Court decides that it is in his best interest to remain with his brothers with the extended family. [ 34 ] The abovementioned Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families is also providing guidance with regards to the placement of a child from First Nations. The following priorities are to be respected: 16

(1) The placement of an Indigenous child in the context of providing child and family services in relation to the child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, is to occur in the following order of priority: (

a) with one of the child’s parents; (

b) with another adult member of the child’s family; (

c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child; (

d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs; or (

e) with any other adult. [ 35 ] Therefore, it appears that the choice of the kinship family of the grandmother is respecting the terms of the Act, since the Court

has concluded that none of the parents is presently able to assume the children for the reasons mentioned above. [ 36 ] The Director has responsibilities stemming from the Youth Protection Act. One of its responsibility according to

Section 69 is to communicate regularly with the child and his family and acquire a first-hand knowledge of the child’s living conditions by visiting the premises as often as possible. The father made it impossible for the Director to fulfill its legal obligation. [ 37 ] The father carries a heavy burden of his own trauma stemming from a very difficult childhood. He needs time to heal and to get better. His personal trauma have an impact on his parental skills, more particularly with regards to the children emotional needs.

When the children were entrusted to him back in September, the father had made efforts and breakthrough. The Director’s recommendations were made on the assumptions that the father would be motivated to continue his good work with the children with him. His rigid position is hard to understand and has been negatively affecting his children, not in their immediate security, but in their development. The Court encourages the father to resume his work with the team that is available for him at the Family and Wellness Center. As a parent, he should be the principal caregiver for the children.

The goal is for him to resume his caregiving role as soon as possible, but in the respect and the best interest of the four children. Their best interest commands that they maintain a relationship with their maternal family. It is also crucial that the Director be able to know their living conditions and make sure all their needs are fulfilled. [ 38 ] The children must be protected from the denigrating speech and impulsive behavior of their father with regards to their maternal family and towards social services. The supervision of the contacts between them will achieve this goal.

The father is strongly encouraged to gain insight as to his personal responsibility in the present situation. He is not a victim, but rather an active player: in that regard, he has the potential to heal and become a better parent for the greatest benefit of his four children. [ 39 ] To conclude, the Court is encouraging both parents to take steps in order to heal and get better. The Court declares that the security or the development of the children is still endangered. The following measures are adequate to put an end to the situation of endangerment.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 42 ] REVISES ET EXTENDS the Court order rendered on September 21, 2021; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the children Y, X, Z and C be entrusted to the kinship foster family of their maternal grandmother Ms. D and her partner Mr. E; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the maternal grandmother and her partner Mr.

E do not put the children in contact with the mother without the previous authorisation of the Director of Youth Protection and according to the conditions determined with their representatives ; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and that should there be no agreement that the contacts be once a week at the offices of [community services]; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child Y and his mother be supervised by a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and upon agreement between the parties including the consent of the child; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the three youngest children and their mother be supervised a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and upon agreement between the parties ; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continue to receive services from the [community services] Traditional Support Workers and Parenting Worker; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that the father consider contacting [community services] psychological services to request a qualified therapist and to follow through with the recommendations given by Dr.

Marc Ravart as per his Psychosexual Expertise dated April 19, 2021; [ 50 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father accepts to follow such recommendations; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother meet with a [community services] addictions worker and follows recommendations and seek therapy for battered woman’s syndrome; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children is in danger; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the children and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 54 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the children receive the necessary medical and social services as needed; [ 56 ] ORDERS that Y continue with his follow-up at A Clinic and ORDER that his confidentiality be respected; [ 57 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the psychological assessment for Y has started and that the child is accepting to finish it and follow recommendations ;

[ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the four children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 59 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. __________________________________ ANNICK BERGERON, J.C.Q. M e Caterine Caron Attorney for the Applicant M e Hélène Robitaille Attorney for the child Y M e Patrick Cormier Attorney for the child X M e Nancy Côté Attorney for the children Z and C M e Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the mother M e Kathleen O’Meara Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: January 13 th and March 24 th , 2022 Date of signature: April 27 th , 2022