2022 QCCQ 3161, 2022 QCCQ 3161

Protection de la jeunesse — 221761 2022 QCCQ 3161 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-006610-219 760-41-006611-217 DATE: February 17, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2017 Y, born [...], 2015 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant and.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The children reside with their parents.

Their half-brother Z also lives with them every second week under a joint custody arrangement. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks a 9-month protection order in reason of educational neglect stemming from inappropriate parental responses to the children’s needs, mostly in regards to structure and discipline. [ 3 ] In parallel proceedings, the Court is also seized of an application for protection in regards to their older half-brother Z. [ 4 ] The mother contests the Director’s evaluation as to the situation of endangerment as well as the family’s need for a follow-up.

She denies that her spouse’s interactions with the children warrant the application of protective measures. Furthermore, she submits that the family is able to autonomously deal with any issues and that the Director’s involvement will only serve to add pressure on their dynamic. [ 5 ] The father chooses to not participate in the proceedings. [ 6 ] The children’s attorney, operating under a legal mandate, subscribes to the Director’s evaluation and proposed orientation. [ 7 ] In view to the respective positions, the Court defines the following litigious issues: i.

Are the children the subject of educational neglect? ii. If such is the case, is the security and/or the development of the children in danger? iii. What measures should be put in place to protect the children and attain the objectives of the law? [ 8 ] After having considered the evidence, the Court endorses the application, while also providing additional measures destined to address the specific challenges in place. [ 9 ] Follows are the elements justifying this decision. Context [ 10 ] The children reside with their parents. Their half-brother Z lives with them every second week within a shared custody

agreement. [ 11 ] The children are developing well in their environment. [ 12 ] The Director’s intervention follows verbalisations made by Z in April 2021, of which the context and essential details are described hereinafter. [ 13 ] Z is at school. He’s observed to be preoccupied and upset. He asks two of his teachers to urgently speak with the principal. He adds that he is worried for his two younger siblings as his mother’s boyfriend is mean with them. [ 14 ] When he speaks to the school principal, he is emotionally distraught.

He tells her he fears for his younger siblings because their father is too rough with them. His stepfather is often in a bad mood and yells a lot at them. He has seen him grab and throw his siblings on their bed and spank them. [ 15 ] Such states that such incidents occur two or three times a week when he is present and has been ongoing for a long time. His siblings would be scared of their father’s reactions and sometimes hide from him. [ 16 ] His mother sometimes intervenes, but without much result.

When he asks her why his stepfather reacts that way, she responds that he has had a complicated life. [ 17 ] He adds having spoken of this to his father, who tells him that it doesn’t concern him as it relates to the mother’s children. [ 18 ] In a subsequent meeting with the school principal and the caseworker, the child repeats a coherent version of his perceptions in regards to the family dynamic at his mother’s home. [ 19 ] The evidence shows no outside factors that could influence the child’s version of events. [ 20 ] The parties admit that Z functions positively in all aspects of his life.

He is generally well-behaved, good humored and sociable. He is also described as being sensitive and prone to being anxious. He has no issues as to truthfulness nor respecting authority. He has good relationships with his parents and siblings. [ 21 ] In reason of the nature of the allegations, Y is accompanied to the police station to be interviewed.

He indicates that when he is not acting right, his father gets angry and tells him to go to his bedroom to calm down. [ 22 ] Advised of the content of the complaint by the caseworker, the mother states having no concerns as to her spouse’s interactions with the children. He is a good parentr and has an affectionate relationship with their children. As to discipline, he can sometimes raise his voice and occasionally spank them on their bottoms. [ 23 ] She recognizes that the father can be impulsive and reactive at times and would probably benefit from an anger management services.

His short temper is an ongoing issue, but he continues to work on it and has improved in this regard. She adds that there have been family stressors which they are actively dealing with. [ 24 ] The father is reluctant to meet with the caseworker, but finally does so at his spouse’s insistence. He denies any inappropriate interactions with the children, although he admits to sometimes lacking patience as relates with dealing with their behaviors. [ 25 ] He is openly mistrustful of social services, having been followed under protective measures in the past.

He also indicates that he remains haunted by his criminal record, which sometimes leads to him being less available for his children. [ 26 ] Both of them reject the need for services. [ 27 ] After the first meeting, the mother minimally exchanges with the caseworkers and she participates in the judicial process. [ 28 ] The father refuses interactions with the caseworkers and is openly hostile at all attempts to do so.

He also chooses to not participate in case management process or attend the hearing. [ 29 ] The Director being unable to meet with the parents nor the children despite repeated requests to do so, seeks the Court’s intervention.

On September 10, 2021, the Court authorized meetings with the children on two occasions in order to better evaluate their evolution before the onset of the hearing. [ 30 ] The father fails to respect this order by refusing to allow access to the home, despite the mother’s efforts to convince him to comply. [ 31 ] Overall, the parents rapidly retract any active participation with the Director. [ 32 ] Z verbalises that since the Director’s involvement, the situation at his mother’s is improved. His stepfather yells less and they have more family activities.

Analysis and decision [ 33 ] Are the children the subject of educational neglect? [ 34 ] The evidence demonstrates that such is the case. [ 35 ] Firstly, Z’s version of the situation at his mother’s is both credible and reliable as to his stepfather’s emotional reactivity.

[ 36 ] The following facts sustain this conclusion: • He repeats his version of facts to numerous persons (caseworker, father, school principal, lawyer); • He demonstrates ongoing distress in regards to the dynamic in his maternal environment (less attentive during his weeks at his mother’s); • The father’s history of delinquency and involvement with justice which still impact him on different levels, including his emotional availability; • The father’s avowed impatience relating to disciplining the children; • The father’s aggressive and impulsive behaviours with the caseworkers; [ 37 ] The circumstances surrounding Z’s initial verbalisations are telling as to the family dynamic and the ongoing nature of the difficulties in place. [ 38 ] He turns to his parents to help him, to no avail.

Feeling overwhelmed and without guidance, he finally seeks out another authority figure available to him – his school principal.

The depths of his despair at this moment is heartbreaking and the demonstration of how the situation has impacted him on a profound level, and this when he is only in the environment half the time. [ 39 ] In reason of the children’s ages and relationship with their father, they are also subject to being negatively impacted by inappropriate and maladapted parenting which result from emotional outbursts and impatience. [ 40 ] The conjugal dynamic is also a pertinent factor in the Court’s determination. [ 41 ] Although the mother testifies to having a positive relationship with her spouse, the evidence demonstrates that the father’s moods and emotional outbursts are subject of frequent frictions and negotiations between them. [ 42 ] The Court concludes that the mother has limited control over her spouse’s reactions and perceptions, which contributes to this situation not being properly addressed and progressively impacting the children. [ 43 ] Such is the foundation of the finding of educational neglect. [ 44 ] If such is the case, is the security and/or the development of the children in danger? [ 45 ] Once educational neglect is proven, there is a presumption that the children’s security and/or development are in danger.

Such can be overturned by contrary evidence. [ 46 ] While not contradicting her son’s verbalisations nor that her spouse can demonstrate anger issues, the mother submits that the situation has improved and that the Director’s intervention will only serve to put additional pressure on the family and that they are able to independently deal with their issues. [ 47 ] In point of fact, since the Director’s involvement, the child confirms that there have been improvements at his mother’s. The dynamic is calmer, his stepfather yells less and there are more activities.

Notwithstanding, he relates that there are still incidents when his stepfather can yell or spank his siblings. [ 48 ] For the Court, such is insufficient to counter the evidence demonstrating that the challenges underlying the situation of education neglect are still very much present, therefore maintaining the children at risk. [ 49 ] The evidence shows that the mother is protective of her spouse and this, to the point of affecting her sensitivity and ability to protect her children. [ 50 ] While able to recognize her spouse’s impulsivity and rigidity, she prioritizes family harmony by mediating what she can and conceding on what she cannot.

This results on the family dynamic pivoting on the father’s mood, to the detriment of the children. [ 51 ] Already a challenging dynamic, such has become more intense and complex following the Director’s arrival, as the father remains openly hostile and rejecting of any interventions, including those of the Court. [ 52 ] The overall result is that the parents prioritize their own needs to the detriment of their children’s, namely that they benefit from a positive role models and adapted structure in a serene environment. [ 53 ] The chronicity of the situation and the family dynamic convince the Court that an accompaniment and services are necessary properly address the issues. [ 54 ] What measures should be put in place to protect the children and attain the objectives of the law? [ 55 ] The objectives of the measures are to ensure that the children no longer be subjected to the recognized elements of endangerment while operating a long-term rehabilitation. [ 56 ] In the present situation, the general orientation sought by the Director corresponds to these objectives. [ 57 ] While such is the case, further orders and measures are required to better ensure the evolution of the situation.

The Court explains.

[ 58 ] Up until now, the father has mostly refused to cooperate in the evaluation and Court process, resorting to hostility and even openly rejecting court orders. To a lesser degree, the mother has also not been openly cooperative. [ 59 ] Indicating that working with both parents would be preferable, the Director is realistically expecting to work more, if not exclusively, with the mother, being convinced of her ability to invest herself in services.

The objective will be to give her tools to be able to deal with the father and be more protective towards her children. [ 60 ] While being sensitive to the stress and distress which can accompany the intervention of social services, the children’s interests are the overriding factor for the determination of measures of protection. [ 61 ] The Court cannot tailor the intervention nor the orders to a parent’s willingness or not to participate.

That the Director’s intervention be permitted to be diluted by a parent’s obstinate refusal to invest themselves is in direct contradiction to the children’s rights to protection and rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment. [ 62 ] Consequently, if their active participation is dictated by the situation, the order must reflect this imperative. Such is the case here. [ 63 ] The Court certainly expects that the parents cooperate in good faith with the present judgment in view of resolving the issues at hand.

Notwithstanding, it is necessary to address the ongoing challenges stemming from the dynamics in the children’s environment and the consequent probable issues as to the parent’s cooperation in the future. [ 64 ] To avoid any ambiguities, both parent’s participation is ordered as an essential measure towards the protection of the children and the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment. Additionally, the Court clarifies the nature of this participation as well as the necessity that the Director directly evaluate the children’s development.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 65 ] GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 66 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are in danger for the following reason: • Educational neglect (article 38b)1)iii) Youth Protection Act ) [ 67 ] MAINTAINS the children with their parental milieu; [ 68 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered and more particularly: • Participate in scheduled meetings with the case worker(

s) delegated by the Director of Youth Protection; • Invest themselves in the recommended services and/or follow-ups; [ 69 ] ORDERS that each parent report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment and this, following a mutually agreed upon

schedule or in default of such, once every two weeks; [ 70 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection’s delegates to meet with the children in the absence of their parents; [ 71 ] RECOMMENDS that such meetings occur in the family environment should the parents offer adequate cooperation.

In default of such, meetings may occur outside the family environment; [ 72 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits in the family environment; [ 73 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 74 ] ORDERS that the present judgment be served to the parents by bailiff; [ 75 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment; [ 76 ] THE WHOLE for 9 months. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Alexandre Germain Attorney for the Applicant Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children

Date of hearing: November 22 and December 15, 2021 Date of signature: February 17, 2022