2021 QCCQ 2882, 2021 QCCQ 2882

Protection de la jeunesse — 211290 2021 QCCQ 2882 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] “Youth Division” No.: 525-41-036855-203 DATE: January 22, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X Born on [...], 2010 Director of Youth Protection Applicant - and- A - and- B Impleaded parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 Y.P.A. ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1, and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] Y and her brother X are 6 and 10 years old, respectively. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) asks the Court to declare that their security or development is in danger because they are exposed to a dynamic of conjugal violence between their parents. [ 3 ] Initially, the Director recommended that the children be entrusted to their mother and that support measures be provided to the family. [ 4 ] In November 2020, the parents decided to resume cohabitation.

The Director now recommends that the children be entrusted to both parents with follow-up by social services for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The parents acknowledge the parental conflicts to which the children have been exposed. They believe that they have taken steps to put an end to the situation and that the Director’s intervention with the family should be limited to a period of three months. [ 6 ] Counsel appointed to represent the children considers that follow-up by social services for six months is necessary to ensure that the father completes an emotions management program.

ISSUES [ 7 ] Should the Director’s intervention with the family be maintained for longer than three months? [ 8 ] Given the intensity of the conflicts between the parents in the children’s presence for several years, but also considering their will, capacity, and efforts to resume more healthy cohabitation, the Court believes that a period of three months of intervention by the Director will be sufficient.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 9 ] The parents admit that financial difficulties – the father’s lack of employment for nearly a year – has caused a lot of frustration and conflict between the couple. [ 10 ] To these sources of conflict, the mother adds differences in their religious practices and methods of upbringing, specifically, the mother is stricter than the father. In September 2019, the conflicts culminated in an incident of violence. [ 11 ] The mother reported verbal abuse and the father’s controlling behaviour towards her in the form of a surveillance camera in the

house and turning off the Wi-Fi to limit the mother’s internet access. The mother reacted explosively to the father’s actions. [ 12 ] Even though they were no longer a couple, the parents continued to live under the same roof for the children’s benefit until August 2020. They hoped to achieve a healthy co-parenting relationship for their children. [ 13 ] In August 2020, the relationship deteriorated. The father disparaged the mother in front of X. Concerned, the mother took refuge at the maternal grandmother’s home. [ 14 ] The children confirmed that their parents fight.

X reported: “they yell and swear at each other… I try to make them stop or I just try not to hear it”. It makes him sad. [ 15 ] Y also stated that the fighting makes her sad. She showed the caseworker a bruise on her mother’s arm. Her mother had told her that her father did it. [1] [ 16 ] Both parents are devoted to their children’s well-being.

They are also able to turn to the support services offered in the community to respond to both the children’s and their own needs: follow-up at the CLSC to better respond to X’s needs in relation to his autism; post-traumatic stress therapy for the mother; [2] support services following a professional burnout, which the father has received. [ 17 ] In the fall of 2020, they decided to resume cohabitation and they both started therapy. [ 18 ] The mother’s efforts with the social worker, Ms. [Social worker 1], started several months ago and the therapist noted that, over the last three months, the mother has appeared very motivated to take the steps needed to ensure the success of her family life for the well-being of her children. [3] [ 19 ] The father’s work with the social worker Mr. [Social worker 2] at the Clinic A is less conclusive.

It started on September 23, 2020, but was interrupted in November 2020.

The father cited the high cost of the meetings and the fact that he has reached the limit of his insurance coverage through his employment. [4] [ 20 ] Mr. [Social worker 2] reported slight progress in the father “who has not engaged adequately in the treatment process and is not able to acknowledge his responsibility for what has transpired”. [5] [ 21 ] The father testified that he will resume treatment with Mr. [Social worker 2], as his insurance will once again cover this service. [ 22 ] The Court notes the parent’s eagerness to put the Director’s intervention behind them but considers that the children’s interest in not being exposed again to the sadness and turbulence provoked by the parental conflicts requires that follow-up services with the family continue. [ 23 ] The following factors support the Court’s decision: - The chronic nature of the conflicts - The intensity of the father’s controlling behaviour in 2019 and 2020 - The mother’s financial dependence on the father - The father’s poor recognition of his controlling behaviour - The young age of the children [ 24 ] However, the parent’s motivation to provide the best for their children, their capacity to seek out the services offered in the community, their commitment to continuing their respective therapeutic treatments, and the Director’s intervention with the family since September 2019 are elements that all weigh in favour of a shorter period of intervention than that recommended by the Director. [ 25 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 26 ] THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is in danger due to psychological ill-treatment, being exposed to the parental conflict; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his parents; [ 30 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of violence whether physical or psychological; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent to engage in services related to conjugal violence; [ 32 ] ORDERS the father to complete the treatment with Dr. [Social worker 2] and to follow his recommendations; [ 33 ] ORDERS the mother to maintain the steps taken with Ms. [Social worker 1] from the Centre de médecine familiale and to follow her recommendations for psychotherapy;

[ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents engage in couple therapy; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain information with service providers working with the family as far as assiduity and progress are concerned; [ 36 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE for a period of four months; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

SIGNED IN TOWN A ______________________ MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. Mtre Esther Sterling Counsel for the DYP Mtre Mylène Saad Counsel for the child Date of hearing: January 22, 2021 MN/if