2021 QCCQ 3453, 2021 QCCQ 3453

Protection de la jeunesse — 211826 2021 QCCQ 3453 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000505-199 DATE: April 7, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2009 Child and A and 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the judgment rendered on December 3, 2019, in respect of the child. His siblings are aimed by the same proceeding and a common hearing is held. The DYP considers that the security and development of the children are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act (YPA), as hereby detailed: Y 38c) Situation of psychological ill-treatment 38b) 1 Neglect X 38c) Situation of psychological ill-treatment 38b) 1 Neglect 38f) Serious behavioural disturbance Z 38c) Situation of psychological ill-treatment 38b) 1 o iii) Neglect (Failure to provide the child with appropriate supervision or support) [ 2 ] The parents’ relationship is acrimonious since their breakup.

Moreover, this situation is one of the reasons leading to the intervention of the DYP in 2013. • Last order (December 3, 2019) [ 3 ] In the last judgment rendered, the parties were in agreement with the recommended protective measures. In the beginning, the parents share the custody of the children. Starting March 2018, Z lives full time with her father. Her brother and sister remain in shared custody. [ 4 ] As mentioned in the order, relationship within the family is strained. The parents do not trust each other.

The mother considers that the father does not take adequate care of the children and questions his drinking problem. The father easily criticizes the mother and speaks negatively about her. The children are aware of this situation and they react to it. The relation between the mother and Z is difficult. The latter accuses her mother of acting against their interests. The father is indisposed to work with the DYP and refuse services

helpful for the children. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 5 ] At the hearing, the parents are present as well as the adolescent for some parts. The positions of the parties differ somewhat. However, in the case of Z, all parties are in agreement with the recommended protective measures. [ 6 ] Regarding the father, he admits that the safety or development of the children are in danger according to

section 38c) for all of them and, 38f) for X. However, he denies it under

section 38b)1 for Y and X and

section 38b)1 o iii for Z. Furthermore, he alleges that the judgment should be extended and not revised considering that there are no significant changes. For these reasons, the share custody should continue for Y and X.

He also denies any allegation related to exposure to domestic violence. [ 7 ] On the mother’s side, she agrees with all the conclusions sought by the DYP with the exception of the withdrawal of supervision of the father’s visits and the conclusion “ forbid the parents to expose the children to any form of violence ” should only apply for the father. [ 8 ] Counsel for the children Y and X also expresses their wishes to remain in shared custody. QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE [ 9 ] The present case therefore raises the following questions:

a) Does the evidence demonstrate new facts since the last order justifying its review?

b) Does the evidence shows that the safety or development of the children are in danger because they suffer from neglect?

c) To whom should the children Y and X be entrusted for their best interest?

d) If the children Y and X are entrusted to the mother, what should be the protective measures? ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 10 ] The DYP’s evidence is based on documentary evidence as well as a testimonial. In defence, the parents are also heard as well as witnesses. Some documentary evidence is filed by the father. • Parent’s situation [ 11 ] The father never talks about anything nor about what is going on in the family. He does not talk about his own difficulties.

His collaboration with DYP is minimal. [ 12 ] In meetings with the DYP, the father rarely asks questions or shows interest in the information communicated about his family. Even when asked specific questions, he gives little details. It shows little openness and transparency. It is difficult to organize meetings with him due to his lack of availability, despite the various alternatives suggested.

It is complex to provide him with adequate services, as he does not recognize any problem regarding him or his children. [ 13 ] Instead of talking about himself, he points out that it is the mother who is too strict with the children and that they do not get along well with her. The children have no behavorial problems at his home. It is rather the mother who seeks out problems that do not exist. The father is of opinion that the children are different depending on their environment.

According to him, the children prefer to be at his home because they are freer and it is more livable. [ 14 ] The father deliberately failed to notify the DYP that his daughter Z had dropped out of school in early November 2020. When asked previously, about how she is doing in school, he answers that everything is going well, even if she no longer attends. [ 15 ] The father affirms that Y is doing well in school, while her teacher says otherwise. The latter reports that before September 18, 2020, the child is tired and sleeping on her desk. She is not available for learning activities.

However, after this date, a change is observed, from then on, she functions well. According to her teacher, she is a totally different child. Moreover, this period coincides with the period of custody of the mother [1] . [ 16 ] At the review table, in June 2020, the father informed the children of the DYP’s guidelines concerning them, which is completely inappropriate. They are very worried following their fathers’ revelations. [ 17 ] The mother shares her concerns regarding the children’s routine and their supervision in the paternal environment. While in the United States, she heard little from them.

Upon her return in mid-September, she resumed their full-time duty, for a period of time. [ 18 ] The situation is far from easy. She explains that the children object, refuse to follow instructions, use threats and break objects. These behaviours occur as much in the mother’s environment as well in the school environment. Moreover, a protocol was put in place at school regarding respect for the rules of life, in which both parents participate. [ 19 ] When shared custody is resumed, the children react a lot at the exchange.

The mother reports that when the children return from the father, they become disorganized, they question her ways, confront her about her rules as well as her personal life. They call the father a lot during their stay with the mother while they do not call her when they are with him. [ 20 ] The mother is very invested and involved with the children. Like the father, she loves them very much and wishes only their best. She is more aware of the children’s difficulties. She is taking the necessary means to face them and to help them.

[ 21 ] She shares many experiences with the children since her return. One of the incidents is particularly disturbing. At the end of September, she forbid her son to use the computer because he has exceeded the allotted time. He reacts sharply and runs away to go to his father’s house to get his computer. When she reiterates her refusal to use it once again, his reaction is disproportionate. He gets angry, hits his mother, kicks her and throws things around the house. The event continues even outside the residence.

The child becomes disorganized with such aggressivity and violence that the mother goes to the police to intervene. At this time, X was placed in a rehabilitation center. His father does not accompany him during the placement, on the pretext that he is busy. The placement is very beneficial for the child and also for his sister. [ 22 ] The children’s screen time is a problem that has persisted for two years. Although the mother installs software on the cellphones to control access, upon returning to the father, these applications are deleted.

The mother emphasizes that the children do not have the freedom to love both parents, risking to be excluded by the father. [ 23 ] The mother benefits from several services at the Maison A. She receives services for her personal problems as well as a support service regarding her life reorganization. She also benefits from a follow-up, in order to improve her parenting skills and her relationship with her children as well as for her separation. Despite her experience with the father and the ongoing conflict between them, she addresses him in a respectful manner.

Moreover, during her testimony, we did not sense any animosity on her part towards the father. However, several incidents occur during the ordered measures clearly demonstrating that their communication is manifestly deficient. [ 24 ] The parents have serious communication problems. Their exchanges take place mainly through emails or text messages. Again, this method generates conflicts.

The use of text messages is not always appreciated by the mother and she blocks the father, preferring using email, unlike the father who favours this faster way of communicating. [ 25 ] According to the mother, X has behavioural problems, but it has never been on such a scale. As for the father, he says that the latter has no problem with his behaviour. He adds that at home, the children do not have discipline problems. They usually listen to instructions and there is no need to impose consequences on them. [ 26 ] On numerous times, the DYP tells parents, especially the father, to make real changes, quickly.

Despite this, difficulties persist in the family environment, but also in the school environment. All the persons involved with this family notice that the children have problems, except the father, which is unfortunate. [ 27 ] For several years, this family has been experiencing intra-family conflicts. This situation transpires in the family dynamic. There is always one of the children who is in conflict with one of the parents. The latter must mobilize and invest in the children’s education, especially the father. Currently, he collaborates superficially.

According to the evidence adduced, the father does not value education or encourage it. [ 28 ] On this subject, the youth delegate Mrs. [Social Worker 1] in her report [2] , summarize that aspect as follows: “The reports are unequivocal concerning the children’s priority need for a safe environment and strategies aimed at promoting positive interpersonal relationships with their peers and with adults.

It was also put forward that the parent would have to commit seriously to valorizing education so the children can continue to advance at school and see positive evolution in their relative situations.” [ 29 ] After hearing the whole evidence including the father testimony, the Court could not agree more with the opinion of the youth delegate Mrs. [Social Worker 1] regarding that assessment. • Children’s situation [ 30 ] In school, children are described as withdrawn, isolated and resistant to the support offered by adults. They have a bad opinion of professionals in general.

They experience heartbreak in their choice regarding the parents. Moreover, the latter do not have the same methods of education or the same values. Currently, the departure of the mother is of great concern for the two youngest. They feel torn between the father and the mother environment. - X [ 31 ] X is an affectionate child, but very withdrawn into himself. He is nervous and jittery. He observes a lot what is going on around him. He is uncomfortable around DYP workers. He unreasonably plays a lot of video games. This problem is the source of several disputes.

During custody exchanges, his return is difficult, he becomes disorganized, he throws rocks, shouts, cries, refuses to go to the mother’s house. He often runs away to his father’s house. [ 32 ] The child does not only become disorganized at the mother’s, but also in school and even in the pediatrician’s office. He is adversarial, he refuses to be examined and threatens to hit his doctor. These tantrums are frequent and he is impulsive. While defiant he can act violently both physically and verbally.

A structure and management are necessary to avoid these crises. [ 33 ] At school, the same observations, he disturbs in class, does not respect the rules and makes inappropriate comments. He is adversarial and refuses to work. The school workers note the impacts when taking their medication irregularly. [ 34 ] The child does not see his difficulties just like his father. However, the situation is deteriorating more and more. He received a pediatric consult considering his state.

Faced with its frequent disorganization, increased support from the DYP is necessary as well as external rehabilitation services, in particular an educator. Not only does he have repetitive outbursts, but he steals his older brother’s vape and uses it. He makes disturbing remarks to strangers by text message. When confronted with things that irritate him, he reacts badly and tends to flee. He expresses little about what he is experiencing. He is very resistant to services and perceives people in authority as threats and avoids coming into contact with them.

During the meetings with the youth delegates, he also has opposing behaviours and shuts people out. He insults them and can even leave the meeting. Since the mother left, taking medication has been laborious, whereas it was not the case before.

[ 35 ] The child is caught in the heart of a conflict of loyalty, in so doing he expresses his anger by pouring it out on those around him. He is angry with his mother because she shares their family problems. He does not speak much about his relationship with his father and does not say anything about his paternal environment. [ 36 ] When the child integrated the rehabilitation center, he adapted well. He functions adequately within a clear and coherent surroundings. He even asks to stay there, because he feels good there. During the placement, the child’s difficulties also emerge.

He adopts an opposing behaviour with the educators. Any situation is difficult to manage for him as well as dealing with his emotions. He does a lot of avoidance, but he is receptive to interventions and collaborates well. [ 37 ] After his stay in a rehabilitation center, it is clear that X needs a stable environment as well as clear rules. He requires a place in which it can meet his needs, both physically and emotionally. However, he does not admit his problems, which makes it difficult to deal with him.

In addition, he can also be rigid when he wants. [ 38 ] His position fluctuates over time, as to his place of residence. He says he wants to live with his father, but then he wants to be in shared custody. He feels torn between his parents. He is concerned about his mother’s plans to move, as joint custody would no longer be possible. - Y [ 39 ] Y is struggling with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as well as opposition disorder. She is reluctant to take medication related to her diagnoses.

Following a medical consultation, she stopped taking it. [ 40 ] She experiences difficulties in her interpersonal relationships and is rather isolated. Her friendships are mostly based on discussions via social media. The child reacts disproportionately to her mother’s refusals. From then on, she screams, insults her and refuses to comply with her demands. [ 41 ] During the period from September 3 to November 4, 2020, she accumulated several absences, sometimes unjustified or she is late. These are more numerous when she is with the father than at the mother.

It is found that when she is at the father’s house, she sometimes wears the same clothes as the day before and does not have an appropriate coat for the season. In fact, it is observed that the clothes-style changes depending on the environment. At her mother, she wears clothes more similar to girls of her age, more varied and adapted to her size. [ 42 ] The child understands that the presence of DYP in their lives is linked to the ongoing conflict between their parents.

Obviously, she needs support to develop positively in her personal relationships and her academic progress. [ 43 ] Since the beginning of the measure, the child has stated that she does not want to go live with her father and wishes to move with her mother to the United States. Then she changes her mind and wants shared custody. - Z [ 44 ] The adolescent’s relationship with the mother is difficult. She still refuses to speak with her. She believes her mother wants to buy her and that she is the source of the family’s troubles as well as the DYP’s involvement.

She wishes to stay with her father so that she no longer has any connection with her mother and does not want to see her mother at all. [ 45 ] Her medical follow-up is not obvious considering the pandemic. During a consultation with the child’s psychiatrist, several problems are raised with regard to the adolescent, in particular mood dysregulation disorder, ADHD combined type, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, attachment issues, overweight and snoring possibly caused by sleep apnea.

Despite these findings, few services are in place to support her, because neither the father nor the adolescent raises any particular needs. [ 46 ] She claims that she does not suffer from the absence of her mother in her life requiring any intervention.

As raised in a report because of concerns about her schoolwork related to the responsibility shouldered by this adolescent and because of observations made by the child psychiatrist regarding her needs and her specific condition, it is astounded that no problems have been brought up before [3] . [ 47 ] The adolescent is not diligent at school, her relationship with her teachers and her lifestyle are problematic. Since the fall, she has had multiple absences from school, sometimes without motivation. Despite everything, she participates in academic activities in a positive way.

She has a part-time job and has recently attended her medical check-up. However, she leaves school in the fall of 2020, but has re-enrolled in school, full-time for January 2021.

a) Does the evidence demonstrates new facts since the last order justifying its review? [ 48 ] In the annotated Youth Protection Act (YPA) in SOQUIJ’s internet site “new facts” is defined as follows: “Des “faits nouveaux” doivent être survenus depuis que la décision a été rendue et doivent être de nature à la modifier, la nouvelle situation ne permettant plus les mêmes conclusions [4] .

Les faits doivent être de nature à influer substantiellement sur les motifs ayant entraîné la première ordonnance [5] et avoir une importance telle qu’ils auraient fondé le juge à rendre une ordonnance différente s’il les avait connus. Les faits soumis doivent être liés à la situation de l’enfant et permettre la modification des mesures applicables. L’objet d’une demande de révision n’est pas de passer en revue les faits ayant donné lieu à l’ordonnance initiale.

Le juge chargé de réviser l’ordonnance prend connaissance des faits antérieurs dans le seul but d’assurer la cohérence de sa décision https://soquij.qc.ca/portail/collectionlpja/default.aspx - _ftn15 . Ce n’est que si un fait important était inconnu lors du prononcé d’une ordonnance que la révision à la lumière de ce fait sera possible.” [ 49 ] Furthermore, the case law Protection de la jeunesse - 07841 ​​ [6] defines the notion of “new facts” in the context of an application

for review: “[25] Par “faits nouveaux”, il faut comprendre un ensemble de faits survenus depuis la décision dont on demande la modification et de nature à l’affecter, sans qu’il soit nécessaire que le Tribunal soit saisi d’une situation tout à fait différente de celle qui était à l’origine de l’intervention , la nouvelle situation ne permettant plus les mêmes conclusions. [26] Ces nouveaux faits doivent être de nature à affecter substantiellement les motifs qui avaient justifié la première ordonnance et d’une importance telle que le Tribunal qui entend la requête en révision puisse les prendre en considération et être convaincus qu’elle doive être changée.” [Our underlines] [ 50 ] Thus, on the notion of a new fact, judge Gervais reminds us the “test” established by Judge Marie Pratte in Protection de la jeunesse - 134335 [7] and which reached a consensus to establish whether the situation presented in support of a demand for review constitutes or not a new fact. “[37] The “test” is therefore as follows: if the Tribunal had known of the existence of these facts in issuing the order being reviewed, would its decision have been different?

Did the Tribunal give decisive importance to these facts?” [ 51 ] On this point, it is also necessary to take into account the requirements of

section 3 YPA and the primacy of the principle of the best interests of the child. As Judge Primeau [8] wrote, moreover, regarding the advisability of considering new facts in the context of a motion for an extension: “Ce serait aller à l’encontre des principes fondamentaux de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, particulièrement l’article 3, où on parle de l’intérêt et du respect des droits de l’enfant, que de ne pas les considérer” [ 52 ] Following the last court order, the mother was planning to move with her husband to the United States. At the time, she decided to entrust the children with the father when she went to see her husband. Between July 24, 2020, and September 11, 2021, they lived with their father. Upon her return, the mother had them in her custody between September 11 and October 30, 2020.

Since then, the situation has worsened. [ 53 ] It is clear that several events or situations have occurred since the last ordered judgment. Between October 2020 and November 24, 2020, there is a lot of upheaval in the life of this family. A new assessment of the situation is carried out as well as three review tables. Several elements of concern regarding children emerge. The father says that everything is good in his environment and that the problems are in the mother’s environment. Although he is told that several situations have occurred while the children remain with him, he completely denies it.

He is suspicious of the professionals who revolve around him. This affects children who reproduce the same type of behaviour towards them.

The preponderant evidence shows the father does not recognize any responsibility for the problems experienced within the family. [ 54 ] Since the mother’s return from her stay in the United States, various problems has been observed among the children, in particular : opposition, excessive reactions, refusal to collaborate, threats, breakage of objects, departure of the children to the father without notifying the mother, stopping medication, theft, vaping, academic difficulties, school functioning as well as absenteeism.

Certainly, some were already present before, but they have escalated and others have also emerged, campaigning for a review of the situation. As the saying goes, “nothing is going right.” There are obvious problems with supervision in parenting environment. [ 55 ] In the circumstances, the Court concludes that all the events mentioned above constitutes new facts that justifies the review of the order issued by the Court on December 3, 2019.

b) Does the evidence shows that the safety or development of the children are in danger because they suffer from neglect? [ 56 ] Since the last assessment carried out, new grounds have been retained by the DYP concerning the children. Only the ones under

section 38b)1) for Y and for X and

section 38b)1 o iii) for Z, are contested by the father. •

Section 38b)1 o for Y and for X [ 57 ] In

section 38b)1 o are included subsection 38b)1 o i), 38b)1 o ii) and 38b)1 o iii, as hereby reproduce:

Section 38 1° a situation in which the child’s parents or the person having custody of the child does not meet the child’s basic needs, i. failing to meet the child’s basic physical needs with respect to food, clothing, hygiene or lodging, taking into account their resources; ii. failing to give the child the care required for the child’s physical or mental health, or not allowing the child to receive such care; or iii. failing to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support, or failing to take the necessary steps to provide the child with schooling; [ 58 ] That been said, the DYP as to prove all those elements.

S ection 38.2 of the YPA lists the factors to consider when determining whether the security or development of a child are in danger. These factors are: • the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency of the facts reported; • the child’s age and personal characteristics;

• the capacity and the will of the parents to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; • the community resources available to help the child and the child’s parents. [ 59 ] After looking carefully in all the evidence adduces, the youth delegates only mention in their reports

section 38b)1 o iii or 38b)1 but with the precision educational neglect. [ 60 ] Has the DYP proved all the elements provided in

section 38.2 YPA as to the reason under 38b)1 o i and 38b)1 o ii, t he Court replies by the negative. Obviously the evidence adduced is more related to

section 38b)1 o iii. The preponderant evidence presented does not allow the Court to accept both grounds. [ 61 ] As to the ground under

section 38b)1 o iii, the a nalysis of all the evidence allows the Court to come to the conclusion that the evidence is preponderant on this ground. Children have a high rate of absenteeism, but there is more to it. They have serious problems academically as mentioned above. The father gets minimally involved with the school authorities and does not respect their requests such as to keep the child at home following a crisis. Furthermore, the children go to bed late, which has an impact on their learning. •

Section 38b)1 o iii for Z [ 62 ] The analysis of all the evidence allows the Court to come to the conclusion that the preponderant evidence shows that there is educational negligence. Not only does she have a high rate of absenteeism, but she quits school with her father’s approval. They hide this vital information from the DYP, although direct questions are asked about her educational progress, the father and adolescent fail to point out. They even add that everything is fine. [ 63 ] Admittedly, the adolescent has re-enrolled in school because they are advised that attendance is still compulsory at her age.

She left school without much intervention from the father. The risk of her leaving school again without careful monitoring is still present considering the history.

c) To whom should the children Y and X be entrusted for their best interest? [ 64 ] Clearly, shared custody of the children is no longer an adequate form of custody for them. Indeed, since the mother’s return in September 2020, nothing is going well. As soon as the custody changes, the children become disorganized and several crises unfold in the mother’s environment. In the father’s environment, total silence about the situation can prevail. [ 65 ] In fact, before the mother left, shared custody had to end. From then on the children had to live with the father full time.

However, when the mother returned from her stay in the United States, she noticed multiple problems concerning her children. She realizes that their father does not have an environment favourable to their development. [ 66 ] The father is much more permissive than the mother, even the latter mentions that the mother is severe. The children do not take their medication and the father does not intervene or ensure adequate follow-up. They have no routines and can play video games for several hours.

Children sometimes go to bed very late, even during school’s days, as revealed by the text messages transmitted in the early morning by their son. Although the father denies it, the Court does not retain his version. The outcome that the Court draws from this is rather that the children do what they want at their father’s, unlike at the mother’s. There is an obvious lack of supervision at the father’s. [ 67 ] The father collaborates superficially with the DYP and does not recognize any problem concerning him or the children.

When the educator was involved in June 2020, he did not collaborate, saying he had no problems at home requiring such service. He often cancels meetings with professionals, especially with the educator, and does not return his calls. The father always has excuses to justify his absences or the cancellation of his appointments. He admits infringing the health measures established in times of a pandemic and tries to justify himself.

This raises concerns that the latter will not be able to follow clear rules. [ 68 ] In all of the evidence produced, the same observation keeps coming back, the father is difficult to reach. Many phone calls are necessary by the DYP in order to talk to him. Emails are sent as well but there is no return. He criticizes the DYP for always being the last to know about children’s events. However, with the difficulties that youth delegates encounter when they have to communicate with him, this explains many things. He must take steps to be reachable quickly.

This is his responsibility and not the other way around. [ 69 ] Sometimes the father lies to the youth delegates, as on a surprise visit he does not answer when his daughter is absent from school. Also, his car is in the parking lot and the curtain opens at one point. He indicates that he was at his neighbour’s, which the latter denies. [ 70 ] The father begins a relationship with a new partner in October 2020. In November 2020, she has already moved in with him, which is very fast. The Court questions the choices of the father who could impact the children. [ 71 ] For his part, the father said nothing.

Even his testimony is succinct and not very detailed. He does not convince the Court that his environment is adequate for the children. This lack of transparency is a major flaw, and children are just as suspicious of services as the father, when they need them, due to their significant difficulties. [ 72 ] During a follow-up, the father denies that X stopped taking his medication despite the latter saying otherwise. He believes that the difficulties of the child are linked to the mother, because she is rigid and stricter.

Although he admits, recently, that his son stole his brother vape and he does not see a problem. He is unable to meet the important and specific needs of the children, on a regular basis. [ 73 ] It is observed that Y function more efficiently when she is with her mother for a long period of time. She is more absent at school when she resides with the father. She has learning difficulties and the school’s professional could notice when she does not take her medication.

[ 74 ] The Court does not doubt that the father loves his children except that it is worrying that he does not identify any problem when the school names several as well as in the maternal environment. Do the children when they go to see their father hide their difficulties or the father trivializes them or ignores them? The father does not invest in any follow-up, either for himself or for the children. Although he remains available for meetings, there is little change.

In fact, he does not seem to be aware of his son’s educational difficulties, even if he is informed by the professionals involved. [ 75 ] Furthermore, the father always makes inappropriate comments about the mother. This situation persists over time, because this same observation is underlined in the last judgment rendered.

This must change and children must not be caught up in such a conflict anymore. [ 76 ] Beside in her report, the youth delegate Mrs. [Social Worker 1] mentions the following: “Although we cannot deny that there is still conflict between the parents, it is our opinion that the father provokes parental alienation and puts the children in a context where it seems impossible to say what problems might surface when they are with him [9] .” [ 77 ] Of course, the mother is not perfect and also experiences certain difficulties, but admits them and asks for help to overcome them.

The mother does not hesitate to use services when necessary, unlike the father. The Court sees it rather as a benefit because it does not hide anything and the children obviously have needs requiring professional resources. She listens to the needs of her children and wants to meet them adequately, which also involves setting limits. Rather, she promotes a balance in the imposition of rules. Over the past few months, the mother has set up appropriate follow-ups with the various professionals. She collaborates and follows the recommendations issued both at school and medically.

She is able to provide adequate supervision for the children, which is not the case with the father. [ 78 ] The only downside is the mother’s lack of space, but this is a temporary situation. The mother quickly mobilizes to find solutions. She is well organized and able to take the necessary actions for the good of the family. Certainly, the mother is considering a move with her husband to the United States when the situation permits. Currently, her priority is her children and her project is not set in time.

She would like to bring them with her but on this day nothing is categorically decided. [ 79 ] The evidence shows overwhelmingly that the maternal environment is much more structured, more stable and more supportive than that of the father. It also shows that shared custody is no longer appropriate for children or in their best interests. When the children return from their father’s house, the mother must justify herself to them during the first days of their return, such as the rules at home, her love for them, her personal life and their school participation. This situation can no longer continue.

d) If the children Y and X are entrusted to the mother, what should be the protective measures ? [ 80 ] Is the supervision of the visits between the father and the children necessary under the circumstances? The Court considers that it is not the case. The father has been taking care of his children for a long time. Of course, he is not perfect but neither is the mother, but he cares for his children. The evidence does not show that he represents a danger to them, even less for a short period of term.

He is able to care properly for them during visitation. [ 81 ] The bad relationship between the parents should not be the reason to impose supervised contacts to the father. The children need to see their father, even if, his home is less stable than the mother’s, he is still able to manage his children during visits.

From now on, the mother will be the one who will provide a stable and consistent environment for them and the father will benefit from regular contact. [ 82 ] Concerning the conclusion “ forbid the parents to expose the children to any form of violence,” the mother is of the opinion that this should not apply to her, because she does not behave this way. [ 83 ] However, the orderly measure will be for a few months, it is necessary to ensure that both parents respect such a condition for the sake of the children, because no one can predict the future.

It is better at this stage to ensure equity between the parents so as not to aggravate the situation between them. Moreover, if the mother does not adopt such behaviours, she will continue to do so without more. The best interests of the children are what the Court is concerned about. Considering the parental conflict, such conclusion should be imposed on both parents. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 84 ] GRANTS the amended application for revision and extension of order; [ 85 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38b) 1 o iii), 38c) and 38f) of the Youth protection act ; [ 86 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on December 3, 2019; [ 87 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother; [ 88 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be determined according to an agreement between the parties, in absence of agreement, ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father take place once every two weeks, for three hours; [ 89 ] ORDERS that the child receive health care and health services; [ 90 ] FORBIDS the parents to expose the child to any form of violence; [ 91 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP 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 or development of the child is in danger;

[ 92 ] ORDERS the parents to actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 93 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until December 31, 2021; [ 94 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment; [ 95 ] ORDERS the parties concerned by this order comply with it __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A.

Lemieux for the applicant Me Jules Grenier (January 6, 2021) Me Nicolas Lutzenkirchen (February 11,2021) for the child Me Ann-Chloé Boudreau for the mother Me Alexis Deschênes for the father Date of hearing: January 6 et February 11, 2021