2016 QCCQ 19717, 2016 QCCQ 19717

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610433 2016 QCCQ 19717 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Nos. 525-41-031154-164 525-41-031155-161 DATE: October 20, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X (born on […], 2007) Y (born on […], 2010) - and - Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A Petitioner - and - A B Parents–respondents JUDGMENT [1] JH5272 (section 38, Youth Protection Act ) [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an application under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The parents admit that the security and development of their children are in danger because of their conflictual relationship. That situation has gone on for several years. The children witnessed both physical and verbal altercations. [ 3 ] The parents have been separated since 2011. They signed a consent to judgment providing for shared custody, which was ratified by the Superior Court in June 2015. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the Director recommended that shared custody continue, with social follow-up for nine months.

The father agreed, but would like follow-up for a longer period. The mother wanted full custody of the children. [ 5 ] It was clear from the mother’s testimony that she harbours lasting resentment toward the father. She criticized his lack of availability, the day-to-day care provided the children and his questionable associates; everything appears to be a cause for criticism. [ 6 ] The vast majority of her allegations were verified by the Director and appear groundless. [ 7 ] Ms. B then reproached the social worker for lying. [ 8 ] As for her “prying” attitude, she sees nothing reprehensible about it.

She shows up at school the week the father has custody to check on the children’s lunches, their personal hygiene and their general well-being. She photographed a cousin’s vehicle in front of the father’s home at 2:00 a.m. All are indications of a precarious emotional balance and potentially toxic resentment. [ 9 ] The father appears ready to move on. He cares for his children in his own way, with the help of a visiting homemaker or his family, and the Director has no concerns.

He also seems to feel a certain resentment toward the mother, but the intensity is clearly less worrisome. [ 10 ] The incident that took place last spring, when the mother ran into the father’s vehicle while the children were in it, was presented at the hearing in two diametrically opposed versions.

[ 11 ] The father was arrested, but not incarcerated or handcuffed.

He must face an assault charge. [ 12 ] If the Court is unable to sort out fact from fiction, it is clear that the children were emotionally upset by the incident. [ 13 ] The Director believes that both parents are competent and that, were it not for their long-standing conflict, there would be no reason to intervene. [ 14 ] All agreed that Y needs a psychological assessment to establish the causes for his language problems as well as the best way to correct them. [ 15 ] The Court is not called on to settle a custody debate, but in fact to rule on a situation of endangerment, including the necessary measures to remedy it.

At this point, for the above-mentioned reasons it does not appear appropriate to increase the mother’s custody time. [ 16 ] A mediation process, including a class on co-parenting, should be considered. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] DECLARES that security and development of Y and X are compromised according to

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their parents in accordance with the joint custody judgment of the Superior Court dated June 9, 2015; [ 20 ] TAKES ACT of the parents’ consent to authorize the Director to obtain and share information with professionals working with the family; [ 21 ] ORDERS that Y undergoes a psychoeducational assessment to be provided by the Director; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in co-parenting and mediation sessions; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE until January 1 st , 2018.

Signed in Town A, November 24, 2016 ___________________________________ PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the DYP Me Bernard Sepinwall Attorney for the children Me Josselin Breton Attorney for the mother Me Louise Denault

Attorney for the father Hearing dates: October 18 and 20, 2016 [1] WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).