2021 QCCQ 15547, 2021 QCCQ 15547

Protection de la jeunesse — 218998 2021 QCCQ 15547 COURT OF QUEBEC « Youth Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] N°: 540-41-006050-206 DATE : JULY 20, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Applicant And X Born on […], 2013 Child And A B Parents JUDGMENT Under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.) [ 1 ] An application for the revision of the measures ordered August 19, 2020 is presented to the Tribunal by the Director. [ 2 ] On that date, the child was entrusted to the mother with access rights to the father, in accordance with a judgment from the Superior Court.

It’s worth remembering that the child’s situation is in danger because she is exposed to the separation conflict between the parents. [ 3 ] The revision became necessary because new facts have occured since January 2021, in particular, the child refused to see her father or to talk to him. [ 4 ] On May 7, 2021, provisional measures were ordered, notably, the contacts with the father were reduced to 1h30 per week with the supervision of the Director.

[ 5 ] Today, the Director alleges that the supervision of the contacts is still required because the father is overwhelmed by the conflict and the child is not preserved when she is with him. [ 6 ] The mother agrees with the recommendations of the Director but the father contests the supervision of the contacts. [ 7 ] Upon hearing all the evidence, the prosecutor who represents the child is of the opinion that all the measures proposed by the Director are in the best interest of the child, including the supervision of the contacts with the father. [ 8 ] QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 9 ] Is the supervision of the contacts between the father and the child still necessary? [ 10 ] The Tribunal answers yes to the above-mentioned question.

Here are the reasons for this decision. [ 11 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 12 ] The parents keep blaming each other for the persistence of the conflict. They both recognize that it has a negative impact on the child. [ 13 ] Until mid-January 2021, the visits between the father and the child were taking place every two weeks and they were speaking to each other every two days. Soon after, the child began to refuse to see him or to speak to him. [ 14 ] The child explained that her father, during a contact, questioned her about the mother and he filmed her while she was crying.

She stated that her father could say bad words to her. Also, the child kept refering to past events of physical abuse that would have happened in February 2020. [ 15 ] The father admitted to filming the child on one occasion during a visit. He explained that the child told him she was going to lie on him, so to protect himself, he made her repeat while he was filming her. The father didn’t believe that this event disturbed the child to the point where she no longer wanted to see him.

Instead, he claimed that is was parental alienation on the mother’s part. [ 16 ] Several attemps have been made to find solutions so that the contacts could resume but without success. [ 17 ] In order to reassure the child, supervised contacts were proposed to the father, but he refused. [ 18 ] It is in that context that provisional measure are ordered on May 7, 2021, namely, the supervison of the contacts. [ 19 ] Since then, the child accepts to see her father, but says she is still afraid of him. [ 20 ] The social worker explains that the supervision is still required because she notices that the child is not secured in the presence of the father.

She observes that the father is still overwhelmed by the conflict and openly talks about the injustices he says he is the victim of, despite the presence of the child. In these moments, he is no longer concentrated on the child and doesn’t realize that the child is uncomfortable. [ 21 ] Even though he acknowledges that his relationship with the child needs to improve, the father thinks the supervision is not necessary. For him, it is more a way to limit his contacts.

He feels he has no control over the situation. [ 22 ] As for the mother, although she says she encourages the relationship between the child and the father, she admits having difficulty reassuring the child because of her own fears about the father. For that reason, she doesn’t want to take any

part in the decison regarding the contacts. Furthermore, she doesn’t want to be in the physical presence of the father. [ 23 ] The evidence clearly reveals that the parents are still unable to exercise their co-parenting in a positive manner. Their personal difficulties prevent them from doing so. For that reason, they agree that the Director’s intervention should be extented. [ 24 ] The father shows a lack of parental sensitivity towards the child because he is still overwhlemed by the conflict.

Also, he sometimes tends to interpret what the child says as a provocation to the point where he feels the need to protect himself. For these reasons, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the supervision of the contacts by the Director is in the best interest of the child. [ 25 ] In the other hand, the mother puts the child at risk of being in a loyalty conflict by not wanting to be implicated in the relationship that the child has with the father.

This issue needs to be addressed as well. [ 26 ] THEREFORE AND FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL : [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still in danger by reason of psychological ill-treatemnt under

section 38

c) of the Act; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child remain with the mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the father be favorised and determined by agreement between the parties as for the modalities and frequency. If no agreement is possible, the contacts will take place at least once a week for a minimum of 1h30; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to determine the degree of supervision required during the contacts between the father and the child;

[ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal, in particular, to develop their co-parenting skills; [ 33 ] FORBIDS the parents to talk negatively about one another in the presence of the child or to question her about the other parent, unless with the approval of the Director; [ 34 ] FORBIDS the father to film or record the child if it is to document the separation conflict; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the health care and health services required by her condition, in particular for the anxiety she feels or for the separation conflict she is exposed to; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the parents; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take steps to receive services to resolve their personal difficulties; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father engages himself not to use any physical or verbal aggressivess towards the child; [ 39 ] ALL for a period of one year; August 31th, 2021 __________________________________ LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q.

This is the written and reasoned version of the oral judgment handed down on July 20, 2021 in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . Mtre. Annie MIELE Counsel for the Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse Mtre. Hugues FOUCHER Counsel for the child Mtre. Marina CRIVELO Counsel for the mother B Father LL/hl