2017 QCCQ 20214, 2017 QCCQ 20214

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.). Protection de la jeunesse — 1710620 2017 QCCQ 20214 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Division No. 525-41-030876-163 Date: March 16, 2017 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE PAULINE R. LAFORCE J.C.Q.

DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A CENTRES Petitioner and X Born on [...], 2000 Child and A and B Parents JUDGMENT (Section 38, Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q., c. P-34.1)) [ 1 ] X, who is 16, has been diagnosed with autism, which makes him fragile in certain respects.

[ 2 ] Mr. B, the father, was determined to make an educated and independent man out of his son.

Although his objective was commendable, the father used unreasonable methods to achieve his goals, which was a source of stress and anxiety to the adolescent. [ 3 ] In the winter 2016, the situation became so unbearable that the adolescent stated that he no longer wanted to live with his father. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) asked the Court to declare the security and development of the adolescent to be in danger because he was subjected to psychological ill-treatment by his father. [ 5 ] As the main measure, the Director recommended entrusting the adolescent to his mother, in addition to various protection measures, including social follow-up for one year, to which the adolescent and his mother consented. [ 6 ] For his part, the father contested the merits of the motion for protection and asked that the motion be dismissed.

Subsidiarily, he asked that his son be entrusted to him. However, he accepted that his son receive the health care and services required by his condition. Moreover, the father considered that his son should undergo a psychological assessment, as he suffers from the Oedipus complex. [ 7 ] The mother asked the Court to withdraw from the father certain attributes of parental authority, which the father allegedly exercises against the best interest of the adolescent. CONTEXT [ 8 ] X’s parents, who are of A origin, have been divorced since 2009.

Until March 2016, the adolescent lived with his father, who had legal custody of him. However, X had contact with his mother on weekends. [ 9 ] In September 2010, X was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder with no mental impairment.

Given his condition, he required specialized services. [ 10 ] In November 2015, X was the object of a report alleging that he was subjected to psychological ill-treatment by his father, who denigrated him and his mother in his presence. [ 11 ] Moreover, that situation was an alleged source of major stress and anxiety to the adolescent. [ 12 ] Met at the time the report was assessed, X confirmed that the reported facts were well-founded. Moreover, he was concerned by the impact the report would have on his father.

He feared that his father would interpret the report erroneously and conclude that he was not a good father. X was afraid of being blamed by his father for the report. [ 13 ] Although he acknowledged that his father could be mean and controlling at times with him, X stated that “he just wants the best for me and knows I need to work extra hard to manage in society”. [ 14 ] The mother confirmed that Mr.

B denigrated X, controlled him and threatened to contact his teachers or the government when the father felt that X was disrespectful toward him. [ 15 ] Nevertheless, the mother believed that the father’s intentions were good, however, she felt that, given X’s medical condition, the

methods used by the father were incompatible with X’s needs. [ 16 ] The mother reported certain situations in which Mr. B forced her son to write her emails containing mean comments about her, which made X uncomfortable. [ 17 ] She indicated that X made an effort to please his father but that it was not always recognized by the father. [ 18 ] The mother was concerned with the impact that the father’s attitude and behaviour had on her son, which she herself experienced for years. [ 19 ] The father denied the facts alleged in the report.

He could not see how his methods of upbringing were a problem. [ 20 ] The father reported that the child’s mother has a brain injury and that, as a result, she is not qualified to take charge of the adolescent. He felt that the mother’s way of life was unstable and unpredictable, which is why he obtained legal custody of their son. [ 21 ] Mr. B considers that, given his son’s diagnosis, his son requires close supervision for the development of his independence. [ 22 ] Mr.

B is not considering revising the disciplinary methods he uses against his son, as he feels that they are the only ones that will enable his son to learn how to become an independent adult. [ 23 ] Furthermore, the father was offended by the fact that the social worker did not make the necessary arrangements for the psychological assessment of his son’s Oedipus complex. [ 24 ] In support of his contentions, the father filed a bundle of documents, including a photo of the mother with the adolescent, who was a child at the time, side by side and smiling.

On it, the father indicated: “The symptom of Oedipus Complex on the photo, the child and his mother”. [ 25 ] The father also filed copies of emails sent to the social worker, in which he criticized her for having destroyed his family, having abused the system and having wasted public funds by filing a motion for protection. [ 26 ] A few letters were addressed to the Court, in which the father wrote that he was offended by the fact that he was not authorized to file his documentary evidence.

He felt that his rights were violated in that regard. [ 27 ] Most of the documents were aimed at reporting the behaviour of the social worker, the mother and the Court, of which he said he was a victim. [ 28 ] In them, he also stated his unfailing commitment to his son since birth. [ 29 ] The father reiterated that the mother has a brain injury and does not have the skills to adequately care for the adolescent.

However, that assertion was not supported by evidence. [ 30 ] In the summer of 2016, the father was opposed to X travelling with his mother to China, as he considered that his son had already been there with him in January 2016 and there was no reason for him to return there. In addition, he wanted to use the summer period “to increase and upgrade his studies and every aspect of his situation”.

[ 31 ] Furthermore, the father objected to his son being directed toward a specialized school for the 2016/2017 school year, because, in his opinion, his son had the capacities to study in a regular school, whereas the school board considered that the identified specialized school would meet the specific needs of the adolescent. [ 32 ] At the secondary school that the adolescent attended at the time of the report, it was noted that X was often anxious and stressed with regard to his experience with his father. [ 33 ] On March 14, 2016, X showed signs of distress when he arrived at school.

He was unable to concentrate and complete his school work. [ 34 ] The adolescent reported that, when he returned from a visit with his mother, his father became angry with him and forced him to write to his mother to explain that she had not taught him anything.

The father forced him to write that “it is not normal, it is not like other children, he does not think fast and is dum” [ sic ]. [ 35 ] During a social follow-up meeting on March 15, 2016, X expressed his distress to the social worker and indicated that he could not continue living with his father, who was too controlling and made him feel “that he is not good enough”. [ 36 ] X said he wanted to live with his mother for the time needed for his father to change his attitude toward him. [ 37 ] [Social Worker 1], a specialized educator at the school attended by the adolescent at the time of the report, reported knowing X for four years.

She had noticed a change in X’s attitude and level of anxiety since the beginning of the 2015/2016 school year. [ 38 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] indicated that X had been living with his father since September 2014 and seeing his mother on weekends. [ 39 ] She noted that, at first, the change was beneficial for X, given that the setting up of routine was a stabilizing factor for him. [ 40 ] However, the educator noted that, over time, the impact of the supervision imposed by the father had negative consequences for X, in terms of both school and recreation. [ 41 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] reported that, in October 2016, X arrived at his father’s home later than anticipated from a stay at his mother’s home.

A conflict arose between the father and his son, as Mr. B demanded that X go to the grocery store, which he refused to do because he was tired. [ 42 ] During that incident, Mr. B filmed X while he was crying, and at another time, when he was angry. Mr. B threatened to send the videos to the government and to his entire family. [ 43 ] Given his behaviour, X was not allowed to visit his mother the following weekend.

Moreover, his father forced him to write his mother an email indicating all the negative behaviour he had displayed. [ 44 ] It is important to point out that the father did not have a Wi-Fi connection at home and, as a result, X had to go outside the home at 11:50 p.m. in order to send the email to his mother. [ 45 ] X told Mrs. [Social Worker 1] that his father made comments that were hurtful to him, for example, « tout le monde va voir que tu n’es pas comme les autres, t’es pas normal, tu manges trop, tu es stupide, tu es trop grand ». [ 46 ] When X described his father’s comments, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] noted that he was walking around in circles in the room and

was unable to stay still. Moreover, he said he had a lump in his throat. [ 47 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] noted that X’s marks were never high enough for the father, who required that he tried harder. For example, X got 82% in science, which did not satisfy the father.

The father asked the teachers that [TRANSLATION] “they push” hard on X so that he could get better marks. [ 48 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] said that X seemed to be constantly under pressure to be perfect. [ 49 ] X told Ms. [Social Worker 1] that, during supper one night, his father demanded that he write on his tablet computer the instructions he had not complied with. X told his father that he would do so after his meal. [ 50 ] However, the father demanded him to do it immediately and took his sons chopsticks away from him. [ 51 ] In the process, the chopsticks broke and scratched Mr. B’s arms. [ 52 ] Mr.

B took pictures of his “bloody arms” and told X that he would send them to his teachers and the members of the family. [ 53 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] explained that the chopstick situation caused X much anxiety to the point where he had difficulty expressing himself. [ 54 ] During an activity as part of the social skills course, X was asked to identify what made him unhappy.

He wrote the following on a sheet of paper, which was filed in the record of the Court: « j’écris des choses pas bonnes que mon père demande, noter toujours des choses pas bonnes sur moi, dire des choses pas bonnes sur la famille de ma mère. » [ 55 ] Moreover, X confirmed that, during a ping-pong tournament, his father stopped the games to give him instructions.

Between two serves, X went to the bathroom to cry. [ 56 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] told the Court that, given X’s developmental disorder, the father’s behaviour toward him can confuse his understanding of social situations, as it is more difficult for him to decipher social elements. [ 57 ] It is important to point out that, during the hearing of January 24, 2017, the father had documents that he wanted to file as evidence.

However, this documentary evidence was not served in time and the other parties had not received copy of it. [ 58 ] However, the Director, the mother and the adolescent said they left it to the Court’s discretion to accept the father’s documents as evidence. [ 59 ] However, the mother specified that she accepted its filing only to serve as testimony, whereas she was contesting a number of facts reported in it. [ 60 ] The Court accepted as evidence certain documents only to serve as testimony, as those documents were similar to the father’s written testimony, which was essentially made up of letters and emails sent by him to the professionals around the adolescent and which exhaustively illustrate the father’s position regarding the social and judicial intervention. [ 61 ] The Court suspended the hearing to allow all the parties to take knowledge of this documentary evidence.

[ 62 ] Certain documents were not admitted as evidence because they were written in Mandarin and not translated. [ 63 ] However, the father refused to accept the Court’s decision to set that evidence aside and demanded that it be filed. He insisted on it, denouncing the injustice committed against him. [ 64 ] The Court asked the father to complete, not repeat, the content of the said documentary evidence during his testimony. [ 65 ] Nevertheless, despite the filing of that evidence, the father demanded to repeat its content.

He stated that he had to say out loud what he had already expressed in writing. [ 66 ] It is important to point out that the father had already testified on three occasions during previous hearings and that, each time, his testimony was essentially the same. [ 67 ] The Court had to intervene several times to bring the father back to the alleged situation of endangerment and ask him to respond to the allegations in the motion for protection. [ 68 ] Despite the Court’s interventions asking the father to testify about facts that were not already in evidence, the father continued repeating what was in the documentary evidence. [ 69 ] The said documentary evidence filed by the father was made up of 91 pages, which illustrated in detail and repeated his position as a whole regarding the motion for protection. [ 70 ] Given the circumstances, the Court, for the sake of the sound administration of justice and pursuant to

section 77 of the Youth Protection Act , ended the father’s testimony, as the father was not enlightening the Court further regarding the decision it had to render.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 71 ] The evidence shows that the adolescent is subjected to psychological ill-treatment by his father, which is a source of stress and anxiety to the adolescent and endangers his development. [ 72 ] The filing of the motion for protection led to sharp reactions by the father, who responded by means of emails and letters sent, in particular, to the school attended by the adolescent at the time of the report, the social worker, the Court, various media, the Public Protector, A youth centre, as well as the office of the service quality and complaints commissioner. [ 73 ] The father showed an absence of introspection, as he did not acknowledge any responsibility in the situation of endangerment.

He attributes the deterioration of his relationship with his son to the mother and the social worker. [ 74 ] The Court acknowledges that the father has made a significant commitment to his son and has spent much time and energy so that his son can achieve his full potential and that the father has difficulty understanding why he could be criticized in that regard. [ 75 ] The Court has no doubt that the father is motivated by the best intentions in regard to his son but the means he takes to meet the objectives he set for his son are unreasonable and harmful to him. [ 76 ] The father can be rigid and controlling in regard to his son.

In fact, he behaved the same way with the Court.

[ 77 ] Given the adolescent’s fragile nature related to his diagnosis, he is not equipped to face his father, whom he tries to please without much success. [ 78 ] Although he contends that it is not the case, the father fails to understand his son’s health problems and is unable to meet his son’s specific needs. [ 79 ] Asked by the Court to disregard the content of the reports filed by the Director and consider only the content of his son’s testimony, which was very eloquent, the father was impervious to the suffering expressed by his son.

He felt that his son was being manipulated by his mother and that he does not mean what he says. [ 80 ] The evidence shows that contacts between the adolescent and his father are still problematic, as Mr. B does not comply with the conditions for contact. The adolescent feels uneasy because of his father’s attitude during these contacts. [ 81 ] The adolescent has been progressing well since he was entrusted to his mother.

Not only does he get excellent school marks but he is being considered for a regular class for the 2017/2018 school year. [ 82 ] The adolescent is a member of his school’s jazz band and is involved in various school and cultural activities. [ 83 ] The evidence shows that the mother meets all the adolescent’s physical, emotional and educational needs. [ 84 ] Nearly one year has elapsed since the Court was seized of the matter, and the father’s situation has not progressed at all.

He has not meaningfully cooperated in the social intervention, which he deems to be illegal. [ 85 ] The Court is of the opinion that a one-year order will not be enough to put an end to the situation of endangerment. [ 86 ] Moreover, the father was opposed to the adolescent travelling with his mother to China in the summer of 2016 for no valid reason.

He was also opposed to the adolescent registering in a specialized school, which better met his needs for the 2016/2017 school year. [ 87 ] On several occasions, the father has demonstrated his inability to exercise his parental authority in the interest of his son and consequently, certain attributes of his parental authority must be withdrawn from him. [ 88 ] With great respect, the Court invites the father to take the steps necessary to resolve his personal problems. These steps are essential if the father wishes to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of his son are in danger.

AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT HEREBY: [ 89 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 90 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are in danger because he is victim of psychological ill-treatment on the part of his father; (section 38 c). AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

[ 91 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to the care of his mother; [ 92 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the adolescent and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the adolescent’s wishes; [ 93 ] WITHDRAWS the father’s parental authority to sign all consents for the adolescent related to school registration, extracurricular activities and travel needs; [ 94 ] AUTHORIZE the mother to sign alone all consents for the adolescent related to school registration, extracurricular activities and travel needs; [ 95 ] ORDERS that Mr.

B collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, specifically that he does not denigrate X, film him for corrective purposes, nor speak negatively of Ms. A in his presence; [ 96 ] RECOMMENDS both parents and the adolescent to actively engage with specialized services (i.e.

Centre de réadaptation en Déficience Intellectuelle (CRDI) network); [ 97 ] ORDERS a person working for A Centre to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and the family; [ 98 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of A Centres, who shall the see that the measures are carried out; [ 99 ] THE WHOLE until the age of majority. MADE AND SIGNED IN City A On March 28, 2017 PAULINE R. LAFORCE J.C.Q. Mtre. Edith Zavodni/AQ5960 Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Léandre Dubé-Laberge/AD0JB9

Counsel for the child Mtre. Josée Lefebvre/AX0480 Counsel for the mother Judgment rendered on March 16, 2017