r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 17793

Protection de la jeunesse — 168707 2016 QCCQ 17793 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005102-168 DATE: August 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2007 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

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 Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the child X, born on [...], 2007. [ 2 ] As the foundation for the motion, the Director initially alleges a situation of physical abuse and recommends the application of various protective measures for 9 months within the family environment.

The child, as well as his parents, contests the Director’s evaluation and orientation. [ 3 ] Following a day of hearing, the parties jointly submit that the Court retain a situation of endangerment stemming from educational neglect and endorse the recommendation as to protective measures. [ 4 ] Context [ 5 ] X resides with his parents and his older brother. [ 6 ] X is described as an intelligent and energetic child.

Although his functioning is generally positive, he can be turbulent and undisciplined, which is reflected at home and in his school environment. [ 7 ] The child is subject to regular interventions at school in regards to his problematic behaviours (bothering other students, talking in class, not doing his work). He can receive disciplinary notes, which are sent home to be signed by his parents. [ 8 ] Since kindergarten, almost every time he receives such a note, X decries that he doesn’t want his parents to know. He often pleads to have the note rescinded.

X admits that he doesn’t always show the notes to his parents. [ 9 ] X receives such a note on October 1 st 2015. He doesn’t present it to his parents. [ 10 ] The next morning, before school, he refuses to eat his breakfast (a bowl of rice). His mother forces him to eat and uses a wooden kitchen instrument to incite him. As to further details of this incident, the Court refers to the following testimonies and declarations. [ 11 ] After this incident, X goes to school. He is sad and preoccupied by what happened with his mother. [ 12 ] At recess, he meets Ms [Social Worker 1], a special educator, in the hallway.

She pursues a discussion with X after noticing his sad countenance. To explain how he is feeling, X relates that his mother had hit him with a piece of wood that morning because he

would not eat his rice. Taken into a room, he repeats his initial declaration while crying and holding his shoulder. When asked why he is holding his shoulder, X says that it hurts.

Although the witness sees no redness or marks, X accepts an ice pack to relieve his pain. [ 13 ] When it is time to return to class, X is asked if he has returned the disciplinary note from the previous days; he says no that he’s scared because when he does things that aren’t right, he gets hit. [ 14 ] Following his declaration, there is a complaint to the Youth Protection services. [ 15 ] The social worker meets with X at school in the afternoon.

In an emotional statement, he spontaneously repeats his previous declaration to the educator and confirms its veracity. [ 16 ] In virtue of the application of the multi-sectorial agreement in place, X meets a police officer that afternoon and makes a declaration, which is viewed in evidence. [ 17 ] The Court resumes the salient points of X’s police declaration: • He is there because of things that happen at home. • When his parents find out that he misbehaves at school, they are angry. • His father yells at him. • His mother can hit him with a piece of wood ( bout de bois ) on his back or under his feet. • The piece of wood is brown and serves in the kitchen to make food. • The most recent incident was this morning before school. • His mother forces him eat his bowl of rice while hitting him with the piece of wood. • She hits him 5 times on the back and once under his feet. • During this incident, his father has already left the house for work. • When he gets to school, he is sad and crying. • During recess, he tells [Social Worker 1] what happened that morning. • It is not the first incident of this nature.

It has happened many times ( beaucoup ). He estimates 10 to 12 times. • It is when he gets disciplinary tickets from school that he is punished. [ 18 ] When advised of the content of the complaint and their son’s declarations, the parents are defensive and angry.

While denying any physical interventions as to their child, they accuse the authorities of racism and profiling, adding that the school in unable to respond to the needs of a young energetic child. [ 19 ] Told that the Director would consider placement for X, the parents sign a provisional agreement to not use physical disciplinary methods. [ 20 ] On November 28, 2016, the police interview the mother in relation to her son’s declarations. During this interview she denies the incident of October 2 nd and notably affirms that it is not true that she hit her son.

When showed a picture of the drawing made by her son during his interview, she confirms it as being a spatula. [ 21 ] The mother further relates that everything is normal at home. She admits to having maybe hit him in the past, but not recently, maybe over a year ago. [ 22 ] The family resists any further interventions by the Director. [ 23 ] As well as his police declaration, the Court also benefits from X’s testimony. Visibly uneasy and hesitating, he testifies to lying as to his declarations of October 2, in order to avoid having to reveal his behaviour in school, the day before.

He admits that his mother forces him to eat his rice at breakfast, but that she did it in a gentle manner. This incident was the reason he was subsequently sad and crying in school. His relates his sore back from a fall from the previous day in the school yard. Other than this, he states that everything is normal and fine at home. [ 24 ] Before the Court, the parents agree to a situation of endangerment stemming from educational neglect. The mother admits to using inappropriate educational methods to respond to her son’s behaviours, namely yelling and forcing him to eat.

They agree to the application of the recommended protective measures and to participating actively to these. [ 25 ] Analysis and decision [ 26 ] X’s parents are hard-working and disciplined. Devoted to their son’s development and success, they apply rigorous standards of behaviour. However, the evidence demonstrates that their educational methods do not always match his age, understanding or vulnerabilities. [ 27 ] As to the incident of October 2 nd , the Court retains the version offered by X on that day, which he consistently corroborates to

the school authorities, the police and social services. His corresponding emotional countenance (sadness, crying) also adds to the credibility of his verbalizations. [ 28 ] X’s testimony, however, suffers from the pressure of the situation and his obvious allegiances to his family. Although he partially confirms elements of his initial declarations, this diluted version and his affirmations of having lied, are not credible. [ 29 ] Notwithstanding the version retained, there remains an uncontested fact - namely that X fears the parental repercussions resulting from his misbehaviour.

This results in his emotional disarray, hiding information and ultimately lying. Whether this be to his parents or to authorities, the intensity of these reactions underline that a situation of endangerment. [ 30 ] The mother’s educational methods, as reflected in the incident of October 2, 2016, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of X’s needs as to structure and accompaniment.

Ineffective and even counter-productive, such methods result in a degeneration of the family dynamic as well as adversely affecting X’s development. [ 31 ] The parent’s reactions and initial denial also leads the Court to determine that an accompaniment is required to put an end to this situation and ensure an environment conducive to X’s specific needs [ 32 ] Therefore, the Court concludes that X’s behavioural challenges are not adequately met by the educational methods in place in the family environment, which constitutes the situation of neglect and further justifies the application of protective measures. [ 33 ] The parents need to review and rehabilitate the expression of their parental authority in order to affect positive change in their son’s functioning and therefore ensure that security and development are no longer compromised. [ 34 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of educational neglect.

The Court endorses the measures which are jointly submitted by the parties as reflecting the child’s best interests. [ 35 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of educational neglect; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to his family; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures destined to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the Director of Youth Protection every two weeks on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child's regard in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 42 ] TAKES ACT that the parents consent that the Director of Youth Protection meet with their son at school, conditional that they receive a report of such a meeting afterwards; [ 43 ] TAKES ACT that the parents engage themselves to not use any physical disciplinary methods with their child recognizing that such is inappropriate; [ 44 ] ALL THESE MEASURES of a period of 9 months; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marianne Salin Gingras Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: August 31, 2016