2015 QCCQ 19464, 2015 QCCQ 19464

Protection de la jeunesse — 154691 JL 4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC 2015 QCCQ 19464 YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-027613-132 DATE : December 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A and X Born on [...], 2002 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection A (" the Director" ), to review and extend an order rendered by the undersigned on March 12, 2014, entrusting X to a rehabilitation centre for a period of two (2) months during which time he will integrated into his father’s care along with other corrective measures, the whole until June 30 th , 2015. [ 2 ] As explained later, X is currently entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

Today, the Director is recommending that X remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for six months with reintegration to his father after three months if the situation allows, along with other support measures including aid, counsel and assistance for one year. [ 3 ] X and his mother want X entrusted to the mother’s care as soon as possible. X’s second choice would be shared custody and third, being entrusted to his father. [ 4 ] The father accepts the Director’s recommendations but wants X returned to his care as soon as possible.

Although his lawyer argued that X should not have any contact with his mother, the father has shown some willingness to work towards a shared custody arrangement. [ 5 ] The issue therefore is whether or not X should remain in placement, for how long and if he should then be returned to his father

and/or mother’s care. [ 6 ] This hearing began in June of this year and was completed on November 10, 2015. Numerous reports were filed as evidence and all parties testified, in addition to X’s brother and the father’s wife. The matter was then taken under advisement. Evidence [ 7 ] At the time of the last Court order (March 2014), X had gone from living with his mother to living with his father and then in a foster family. The plan had been for X to return to his father’s care over two months and be followed until June 2015 in order to work on and hopefully normalize family relations.

The Court had identified various issues of concern, including a chaotic upbringing and family situaiton; a history of interventions that had brought little improvement; X developing behaviour problems; the mother’s focus on health issues; the mother’s personal problems, her inability to see these problems and how they impact on X and her tendency to externalize blame. [ 8 ] Today, the Court retains from the evidence that X continues to be caught in the middle of a very complex and never-ending family feud that impacts him at all levels, including his health, his schooling, his social life and his family relations.

The Court comes to this conclusion based on the following. [ 9 ] X returned to his father’s care in April 2014 and continued to have visits with his mother. X was witness to at least one serious physical conflict between his mother and his older brother Y while visiting his mother.

The mother also reported continued conflicts between the two boys during that period. [ 10 ] The father obtained custody of X in Superior Court in March 2015. [ 11 ] X continued to have difficulties at school in terms of effort and presence, leading the school to warn him in March 2015 that he would fail if he continued along the same lines. Instead of putting in the needed effort, X stopped attending school altogether, despite the father’s best efforts to get him in school.

X invoked a two or three month long gastro to explain his absence from school. [ 12 ] X exhibited other problems at home, including deficiencies in hygiene and an increasing isolation from his father and the latter’s wife. X would refuse to participate in meetings with the youth protection worker. He would essentially only speak to his mother. [ 13 ] X refused to attend school into the new school year (2015-16), invoking problems with asthma. This led the Court to order his foster family placement on September 16, 2015. X remained oppositional and sometimes threatening and explosive.

This led to him being entrusted to a rehabilitation centre as of October 9 th , 2015, where he remains to date. [ 14 ] In placement, X has had conflicts with peers and been defiant and abusive with staff. He once barricaded himself in his room and when the door was open, X was on the floor.

Physical complaints required staff to have him transported to hospital by ambulance. [ 15 ] The mother has continued to formulate numerous complaints towards the father’s parenting: food, diet, lack of activities, clothing, X’s school attendance, lack of medical care, homework, father’s drinking, father’s friends, inability to understand X and ensure his basic needs, etc. The mother voices these concerns to all adults involved with X and often in X’s presence. She has told X that while pregnant with X, the father asked her to abort.

She told X at the end of a phone conversation that they had to end the call because “this is the way your father wants it”. [ 16 ] By all accounts, this impacts X and his relationship with his father. X has come to say that he can’t speak to his father because he (the father) has “emotional problems”. [ 17 ] The mother justifies her behaviour by explaining that it’s the truth, that the real issues need to be told and discussed. During her testimony, the mother repeated that the father’s inadequacies “make her very nervous”, which is why she is not open to shared custody.

Her level of anxiety regarding the father’s parenting and her inability to see how her behaviour impacts X have made all attempts to change her behaviour fruitless. [ 18 ] The mother claims that she’s aware of the impact she has on her son but that the father is not. [ 19 ] The medical theme is also omnipresent with both X and his mother: asthma, severe “paper cut”, sore shoulder, gastro, scoliosis, etc.

In each instance, the mother expresses grave concern regarding these issues and gives the message that X is correct to invoke these sometimes trivial issues to excuse his behaviour, like not attending school or participating in a sport. The father’s wife, who has known X for two years, noted that the mother used to be the one asking that X consult a doctor; now it’s X himself, often for very minor reasons. [ 20 ] It should also be noted that the mother does not always inform the father when she brings X to see a doctor. [ 21 ] There is a long history of conflict between X and his brother Y.

Y lives with his mother and claims that things are going well and that his relationship with his brother has improved. During his testimony, Y stated that he missed over 100 days of school last year “for medical reasons”. He is still often out of school this year. [ 22 ] The father has described X’s relationship with the mother as “strange and excessive”. The evidence bears this out. X has few friends and is essentially focussed on his relationship with his mother.

Although loving and caring, the mother’s interactions with X are unhealthy. [ 23 ] Despite all of this, the father has remained child-focussed and does not appear to involve X in adult discussions or openly disparage the mother. He wants X returned to his care even though X has presented this as his third option. The father is nonetheless open to looking at joint custody, another indication of his willingness to try to work things out with the mother in X’s best interest.

[ 24 ] X’s behaviour remains problematic and he needs to show that he can follow basic rules over an extended period of time before he can leave placement. This includes respect of his parents, peers and adults involved in his life. It also means attending school in putting in a reasonable effort. X has the potential to do very well in school. His inability to do so is a clear indication that there are serious problems in other aspects of his life.

Measures [ 25 ] Based on the above, it is clear that X needs to stay in placement until the end of the school year. [ 26 ] The Court will allow his return to his father after three months if his behaviour allows. The father is not only the custodial parent but also the more competent parent. [ 27 ] That said, X is now 13 years old. He wants to live with his mother. There are signs that perhaps his relationship with his brother are improving. The father is open to an eventual form of joint custody.

The Court will therefore allow the Director to work towards a form of shared custody (increasing time with the mother) over the course of the next year provided that X’s behaviour at home and at school allows it. [ 28 ] As well, given that X is overly exposed to medical issues, the Court will order that the mother not have X submitted to any medical test, consultation or procedure unless the father and the Director are first informed (save a real medical emergency). [ 29 ] Although it has been suggested that X’s access to his mother be supervised or even stopped altogether, the Court feels that such a measure is unrealistic as either X or his mother can easily find a way to communicate.

However, the Director will continue, for the duration of this order, to have authority to determine X’s access to his mother. This will include the possibility to impose supervision should it become necessary during the course of the order. [ 30 ] X receives art therapy.

He has a lot to deal with and it would be in his best interest to continue with this service. [ 31 ] As well, the Court agrees with the Director’s recommendation that X should undergo a full psychological assessment to determine what his needs are and what services should be provided to him. [ 32 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision and Extension ; and [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still compromised; [ 35 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 36 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30, 2016; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES that X be integrated into the care of his father after three (3) months if the situation allows; AND FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR: [ 38 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between X and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and supervised; [ 39 ] ALLOWS the Director to put in place a form of joint custody for X if his behaviour and the situation allow; [ 40 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from making any denigrating, disparaging or pejorative comment regarding the father in the child’s presence; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in individual therapy; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the mother not have X submitted to any medical test, consultation or procedure unless the father and the Director are first informed (save a real medical emergency); [ 44 ] ORDERS that X undergo a psychological evaluation and RECOMMENDS that he follow the treatment recommendations; [ 45 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to share and obtain information with school and all treating professionals; [ 46 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and the family; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 48 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary.

_______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the child Me Mélodie Verreault-Nantel Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: CL/nl June 26 th , October 23 rd and December 10 th , 2015