2022 QCCQ 14590, 2022 QCCQ 14590

Protection de la jeunesse — 228598 2022 QCCQ 14590 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 450-41-007476-204 DATE: March 2, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A.

Applicant -and- X Born on […], 2007 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a Motion for revision of a decision rendered October 23 rd , 2020, in which the Court entrusted X to his mother and authorized supervised contact between X and his father according to the evolution of the situation. [ 2 ] The main problem in the father-son relationship resulted from unwarranted physical abuse and a refusal by the father to acknowledge that his conduct was unacceptable.

The father denied having kicked his son in the back after his son called him a «dummy». The father only admitted to having slapped X on the mouth. [ 3 ] After the event, X became very reluctant to see his father and was waiting for an acknowledgment from his father that the conduct was out of line. [ 4 ] In its previous decision, the Court noted :

“[19] The Court believes the father reacted more strongly than he is prepared to admit after X overtly expressed his lack of respect. While it is not appropriate for a child to treat a parent as a “dummy”, parents are expected to exercise the requisite self-control in order to find an appropriate punishment. Uncontrolled anger leading to corporal punishment is never acceptable. [20] X says he was hurt physically, and the Court believes him. The mark corroborates that the force applied was excessive as a disciplinary measure. [21] This event had unfortunate consequences for the family.

In addition to the parental break up, the police are now involved in the case. The father has been charged and released on different conditions. [22] The parties are now facing a deadlock which needs to be resolve if there is to be any hope of reconciliation.

On the one hand, the father remains reluctant to acknowledge certain facts in order to reconcile with his son, and on the other hand, without a minimal acknowledgement, X may decide not to re-establish a relationship with his father. [23] In the coming weeks and months, the parties will need to find a way to resolve the deadlock if a healthier father-son relationship is to develop. [24] The father feels the best way to do this would be for him to see X, apologize and make him feel secure again.

The mother and the social worker are of the view that X first needs to hear an acknowledgement from his father that his actions physically hurt him. In the meantime, they think X should not be forced to have contacts with his father. X, for his part, wants his father to recognize that he has done something wrong and that he is ready to change. [25] Between the simple apology offered by the father and the more detailed acknowledgement required by the son, there is hope on the horizon. X has recently shown an opening to hear from his father which was not the case up until now.

His father has written him a letter and X might now be ready to read it, he says. [26] The father read this letter to the Court. This letter is very touching and shows the love the father has for his son and how much the father is longing to spend some time with his son. [27] But as mentioned at the hearing, from X’s point of view, the letter is lacking an essential ingredient: the recognition of what the father did.

A clear statement that the father recognizes that he hurt X. [28] The father’s testimony in open Court has shown an opening that he might reach common ground with his son. [29] In these types of situations empathy is often the key that unlocks the door of deadlock. The father is invited to continue to look at the situation through his son’s eyes.

The father must try his best to understand X’s needs to be believed when he says he was hurt physically and reassure him that he is now working at changing his methods. [30] If so, the Court believes that the father’s offer to spend good moments with his son will become possible.” [ 5 ] Today, the DYP submits that X is not yet satisfied with his father’s acknowledgement and apology for the event.

Accordingly, the DYP requests that supervised contacts be organized between X and his father only when X will ask for them. [ 6 ] The DYP reports that contacts had resumed at some point in 2021, but in May, the father did not confirm a scheduled contact and the visit could not be organized. X was disappointed and it revived a sentiment that his father had never really acknowledged the impact of the original event. Since this episode, X does not want to see his father.

X indicated he will let his father know when he is ready to resume visits. [ 7 ] Despite DYP efforts to encourage X to see his father, it remains of the view that it is preferable to leave it to X to decide when he will see his father. [ 8 ] The mother is of the same view. [ 9 ] The father wants the Court to force X to have contact with him every second weekend otherwise he feels his relationship with X will diminish over time. The father would like to resume activities with his son. He was encouraged by the positive moments they shared last year. The father doesn’t understand why X doesn’t want to see him.

He questions whether the mother is really encouraging the son to attend visits. He feels the mother is communicating negative comments about him which does not aid in his reunification with the son. [ 10 ] The Court suggested that supervised contact every month could be ordered with the possibility for X to decide if he wanted to attend or not. X could be given some discretion and on the other hand, the father would have a clear

schedule to rely on that would avoid further miscommunication or confusion over organising visits. [ 11 ] The attorney for the child submits that X is adamant about not having a

schedule imposed. She also submits that the history of family violence goes beyond the kicking incident. There is a deeper past of violence caused by the father that X is dealing with, and the Court should not view the situation as a result of a single unfortunate incident. The healing process for X will be a longer journey. [ 12 ] The father responds that the mother also used physical punishment for years and her rights have not been affected.

The father doesn’t understand why he should have to apologize and make amends so profusely while the mother has also applied physical abuse. [ 13 ] Whatever has transpired in the past between mother and son is not before the Court. The issue in dispute today is the relationship between father and son. X is dealing adequately with the mother currently, but such is not the case with the father. The Court is of the view that if X has reached a more stable reconciliation with his mother at this point, it must be because he feels she made a more genuine acknowledgment of her hurtful actions in the past.

[ 14 ] With the father, this is not yet the case and the father-son deadlocks remain. [ 15 ] The Court is faced with the decision of either forcing contacts or allowing X the discretion to decide. As much as the Court would like to see a permanent reconciliation, it must decide what is in X’s best interests. X will be 15 years old this year and imposing a

schedule of forced visits on a determined adolescent could diminish the chances of an eventual reconciliation. Furthermore, X’s counsel strenuously submits that the family history precludes a forced solution currently. Forcing visits is futile. The Court concurs and both father and son will have to find common ground, without forced visits, on the depth of the apology, the acknowledgment of the past and the assurances to be given that past events will not be repeated. Forcing X to be physically present at a visit, will not deliver the heart, mind, or soul of a 15-year-old.

Nor would it create incentive to meaningful and sincere communications which is what is necessary. The Court is of the view that it is wiser to let nature run its course and allow X to find the appropriate timing to move forward. [ 16 ] In the meantime, the Court encourages the father to seek counselling as to how best he can reach out to his adolescent son by acknowledging the past and rebuilding a sense of trust. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger, pursuant to

section 38 e) (physical abuse) and 38 c) (psychological ill-treatment) of the Youth protection Act ; REVISES the Court order rendered on October 23, 2020; ENTRUSTS the child X to his mother; AUTHORIZES in favor of the child, supervised contacts with his father, upon the child’s request and after agreement with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child is in danger; ORDERS that the child and his parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by the Court; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of six (6) months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A to see that the measures are carried out [1] . __________________________________ Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q. M e Marie-Pier Trépanier For the Director of Youth Protection M e Annie-Pier Babineau For the child M e Marco-Pier Caza For the mother M e Karine Pinette For the father Date of hearing : February 15, 2022 Initiales :CBP