2022 QCCQ 8610, 2022 QCCQ 8610

Protection de la jeunesse — 225801 2022 QCCQ 8610 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-006873-221 DATE: July 27, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2013 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant -and- A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Article 38 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). Overview [ 1 ] Alleging a situation of neglect as well as the child’s exposure to a severe parental conflict, the Director of Youth Protection seeks a one-year protection order.

Amid the various measures, the Director recommends that the child remain in his father’s care and benefit from supervised contacts with his mother. [ 2 ] Both the father and the child subscribe to the Director’s evaluation as well as to the conclusions of the application. [ 3 ] The mother resides in British Columbia. Although advised of the proceedings and afforded reasonable means to participate in the hearing, she fails to do so.

The Court proceeds in her absence, but takes notice that she is not in agreement with the application, wishing the return of her son to her care. [ 4 ] After considering the evidence, the Court grants the application while adding a condition as to the child’s continued residence in the province of Quebec. The following facts and elements justify this decision.

Context [ 5 ] In the past, the child has been the subject of protective measures in relation to a serious risk of neglect stemming from the mother’s personal issues and history in regards to her other older children. [ 6 ] Within this follow-up, the mother persistently fails to cooperate with the services and orders put in place. [ 7 ] On May 19, 2019, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family for six months, concluding to the following: [30] There are numerous problematic elements related to the child’s environment which justify that the Court determines that he is at a serious risk of neglect. [31] Firstly, the mother shows a persistent history of personal instability, on a personal, financial and conjugal level.

To this, the Court also considers that her parental capacities are readily overwhelmed by her emotional state. X is repeatedly put in presence of such, as is demonstrated by the police reports and her history in relation to her other children. [32] Although the mother declares being the victim of conjugal violence, her relationship with Mr. B persists with varying intensities. Mr. B declares having regular contact with his son, even saying that he resides with him. The Court therefore questions the

mother’s ability to protect her son from this unhealthy dynamic. [33] The mother is unwilling or unable to confront the problematic issues which affect her parental capacities and put her children at risk. She chooses to flee, deflect or simply ignore the attempts for evaluation or accompaniment. Such is the consistent conclusion from the Director’s interventions. [34] X is a young child who requires a stable, consistent and protective environment.

He is presently of unknown whereabouts in reason of his mother’s determination to evade social services, situation which intensifies over time and takes proportions which permit to question not only her parental capacities but her overall stability. [35] X’s interests justify that he be withdrawn from his mother’s care while a rehabilitative process is undertaken.

The same reasoning pertains to his contacts with his mother during such, which will remain supervised in order to permit that these be beneficial and protect him from her emotional outbursts and/or instabilities. [ 8 ] The mother disappears with the child. The Director’s efforts to retrace the child are unsuccessful. [ 9 ] Some time later, the mother is arrested for an unrelated situation, and subsequently brought before the Youth Division in relation to the application of the judgment. Refusing to divulge the whereabouts of her son, she is found in contempt of court.

At the time, she maintains that he is with his father but of unknown whereabouts. Overall, she spends a number of weeks detained in reason of her refusal to comply. [ 10 ] Once released, she again disappears and despite many efforts and the collaboration of police authorities, the child remains of unknown whereabouts. The protection order ends without the Director having been able to execute its terms. [ 11 ] It is on May 13, 2022 that the Director renews its implication, when the father leaves the child at their office A. [ 12 ] The child is unkempt and has no personal belongings.

He cooperates with the workers and reports the following facts: • Until recently, he was living in British Columbia; • He left that province with his father a few days prior, to come to Quebec; • Police and the courts are looking for his father; • His mother is mentally unwell and he doesn’t want to see her; • He fears that she will take him back to British Columbia should she find out where he is; • He doesn’t wish any contacts with his mother; [ 13 ] In order to better evaluate the child’s situation, the Director intervenes immediately and places him in foster care. [ 14 ] The following facts come to light, being also the reflection of the evidence: • In recent years, the child has been residing in the province of British Columbia; • The father is the child’s primary caregiver; • The parents continue to entertain a conflictual and oftentimes volatile relationship; • Both parents can use the child within their conflict by impeding contacts, etc. • The parents have mutually had recourse to the Courts, police and social services authorities within their ongoing hostilities; • The child is repeatedly exposed to this family dynamic, which includes police interventions, mutual denigration and conflicts; • On July 23, 2020, a protection order is rendered against the mother that she not remove the child from [Region A] of British Columbia; • In 2022, another series of court orders are rendered.

Initially, the mother is awarded parenting time through video conferencing. Such failing to occur, the mother seeks custody of the child, stating that the father has denied her reasonable parental time. • The father fails to appear and by default, the mother is awarded the custody of the child on May 13, 2022. This order is recognized by the Superior Court of Quebec a few days later; • The father brings his son to Quebec in order to escape the execution of the custody order; [ 15 ] In foster care, the child is observed to be intelligent, reasoned and well-spoken.

He reconnects with his siblings. [ 16 ] He maintains that since 2020, he lived with his father in British Columbia. He names that is much better living with his father than his mother, who he describes as emotionally unstable. [ 17 ] He is marked by incidents of conflict and police interventions. He relates a particular incident during which his mother hid him from the police in her home, which is substantiated by a media

article in relation to his being abducted by his mother (evidence D-8). The mother subsequently faces criminal charges.

[ 18 ] Both parents have a complex background and personal history. They struggle with emotional management issues, which are exacerbated by their conflictual relationship. Such impacts their parental capacities and leave their son subject to continued instability on many levels. [ 19 ] Although they have different perceptions of such, both parents recognize having a volatile conjugal and parenting relationship, to which their son was exposed.

Each blames the other of abuse, citing their mental health issues. [ 20 ] The father recognizes such and stipulates his intention to stabilize himself in the province of Quebec and focus on his son’s needs and upbringing. He rapidly undertakes to find work and an apartment in view of his son’s return to his care. [ 21 ] He receives support from the child’s siblings. He continues to cooperate with the Director. [ 22 ] He also states being willing to receive support as concerns his parenting capacities in regards to structure, rules and routine.

He recognizes having need of accompaniment in these areas, having had little positive role models in his past. [ 23 ] The child appreciates the contacts with his father and maintains his wish to remain under his custody. Progressively, he opens up to contacts with his mother and accepts to have supervised video-conferencing calls with his mother. Two of these occur and are positive. [ 24 ] The Superior Court recognizes the father’s paternity. Once the mother learns of this judgment, she withdraws from the follow- up and no further contacts occur.

Analysis and decision [ 25 ] Although the Court certainly does not endorse the father’s actions, its jurisdiction in evaluating a situation of endangerment as concerns the child is established. [ 26 ] As such, the facts demonstrate the grounds for endangerment as purported by the Director: • Educational neglect: relating to inappropriate parental guidance and role modeling for the child as well as a disorganized family life. • Serious risk of neglect: relating to the mother’s history of neglect with her other children and ongoing instability, for which she fails to invest herself in services and/or rehabilitation. • Psychological ill-treatment: relating to the continued exposure of the child to family conflict. [ 27 ] In the last years, the child has been the focus, and suffered from, continued conflicts and tensions resulting from his family dynamic as well as his parent’s personal difficulties.

He requires a safe and stable environment, exempt from conflict. [ 28 ] Both parents have lacked transparency in the past and make significant efforts to thwart services put in place to protect their son.

They clearly need to find a better way to go forward as parents in order to respect their child’s best interests. [ 29 ] Despite the risks in place the Court endorses the protective measures sought. [ 30 ] The father has demonstrated his ability and willingness to offer a better environment for his son and work with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 31 ] In view of the necessity of stability, the Court adds a further stipulation that the child remain in the province of Quebec. [ 32 ] As for the mother, the challenges are myriad but certainly not unsurmountable.

The next months will serve to validate her ability, and willingness, to maintain her parental role and relationship with her child, while working on the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment. [ 33 ] Considering the mother’s history of mitigated collaboration and recent withdrawal, it is necessary to include measures which will allow the child to receive prompt responses to his needs.

The Court invites the parties to seek a revision of such should the situation evolve positively. [ 34 ] As for the expectations towards the parents, the Court cites with approval, the following passage of the orientation report (page 5): For this, Mrs A will need to recognize her personal and parental difficulties as well as take the necessary measures to work on them. As for Mr B, he will need to develop tools to better organise himself and to make better choices.

It will be important that both Mrs A and Mr B collaborate with our services and put in application the tools suggested by our services in relation to their parental role. Furthermore, they will need to put their differences aside and be able to make the important decisions regarding X and in X’s best interest together. They will also need to find ways to communicating with each other without exposing X to their disagreements.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger for the following reasons: • educational neglect (article 38b)1)iii) Youth Protection Act );

• serious risk of neglect (article 38b)2) Youth Protection Act ); • psychological ill-treatment (article 38c) Youth Protection Act ); [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his father, conditional that he resides and remains in Quebec; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and in consideration of the child’s wishes; [ 39 ] ORDERS the parents to advise the Director of Youth Protection in advance of all changes of address; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regards or their child’s regard, to put an end at the situation in which his security or development are in danger; [ 41 ] ORDERS the parents to take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 42 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES the father to sign alone all the authorizations required for medical, school, recreational and extra-curricular activities; [ 43 ] ORDERS the confidentiality of the child’s residential address, school and activities regarding the mother; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make surprise visits at the child’s residence; [ 45 ] PROHIBITS the parents from denigrating each other, or the other parent’s environment, in presence or to the knowledge of their child, nor that they allow a third party to do so; [ 46 ] TAKES ACT that the father agrees to encourage the contacts between X and his mother; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 48 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present order. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Pascale Boucher Attorney for the Applicant Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 27, 2022