2015 QCCQ 19531, 2015 QCCQ 19531

Protection de la jeunesse — 154742 2015 QCCQ 19531 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 29632-155 / 525-41-029633-153 Date: July 8, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2002 In the case of: Y Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) JD2620 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of July 8, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A filed two motions to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X and Y , who are twelve and nine years old, based on the psychological ill-treatment to which they are exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motions dated April 8, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. in or around 2010, the parents separated; 3.2. the mother has custody of the child through Superior Court and the father has visitation rights every third weekend; 3.3. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his parents that could cause him harm and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents have a longstanding history of conflicts including conjugal violence;

b) despite their separation, the parents have continued to expose the child and sibling to conflicts;

c) the parents continue to be verbally abusive and denigrating towards each other in the child and sibling’s presence;

d) despite the Superior Court judgment, the parental conflicts continue;

e) the father has a criminal history including convictions for crimes involving violence, i.e., assault, obstructing a peace officer, criminal harassment and uttering threats;

f) the father has pending charges for uttering threats in which he has conditions of no contact with the mother, including a condition

whereby a third party must serve as an intermediary for him to exercise his visitation rights;

g) in or around Summer 2014, following these threats from the father, the mother and the children moved to a shelter where they resided for months;

h) the child and sibling are very aware of the conflicts and fear that the father will find out where the mother lives;

i) both parents are clearly loving and devoted to the child and sibling, but they have been unable to shelter them from their constant and ongoing conflicts;

j) while in the shelter, the child and sibling have received psychological support (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the children and their family receive aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion.

She expressed her consent to all the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Bourbonnais, also admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The children, assisted by Me Leclerc, admitted all the facts alleged except those regarding their father’s alleged criminal history and pending charges which were ignored.

They consented to the proposed measures and emphasized their desire to have contacts with their father without any supervision. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate of the [children]; D-2: En liasse, Consent Agreement ratified by the Superior Court, dated July 29, 2010 and subsequent Superior Court decisions; D-3: Court report, written by [social worker 1], dated June 30, 2015. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motions. [ 10 ] Unfortunately, the parents have been unable to prevent their children from being exposed to their ongoing conflict. They acknowledge the need for change and appear prepared to collaborate to redress the situation: X and Y have been exposed to longstanding and severe unresolved parental conflict which has been the source of great tension and emotional stress.

While both parents acknowledge the detrimental impact of their conflict on their children they at times are overcome with emotions about their conflict and have difficulty remaining neutral in front of their children. This inevitably affects their ability to meet their children’s emotional needs. Ms. A does not believe that she at times places her children in this position. Mr. B acknowledges that certain messages that he was sending his children are not appropriate and he agrees to work with the DYP on remaining neutral around his children. Ms.

A continues to be anxious about her children’s contacts with their father and fears for their wellbeing. [2] [ 11 ] In addition, regarding the father’s pending charges, he reportedly signed an undertaking under

article 810 of the Criminal Code and restrictions regarding his contacts with the children have been lifted. [ 12 ] Both children express the desire for unsupervised contacts with their father yet need to be protected from any potential exposure to their parents’ conflicts. [ 13 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motions are well-founded and that the measures are in the children's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children, X and Y , are compromised under sections 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the children receive therapeutic services to address the ongoing parental conflict; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that they are receiving counselling on a weekly basis for an hour each; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from making any denigrating comments about one another in the presence of the children; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that they refrain from discussing legal proceedings with the children; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family;

[ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y , to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michel Leclerc Attorney for the children Me Caroline Bourbonnais Attorney for the father TD/vl