2017 QCCQ 20604, 2017 QCCQ 20604

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711194 2017 QCCQ 20604 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005400-174 760-41-005401-172 DATE: November 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2012 Y, born on […], 2014 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Applicant v.

A Mother B Father (Y) / Party to the instance (X) ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Context [ 1 ] Alleging a situation of psychological ill-treatment stemming from domestic violence in the family environment, the Director of Youth Protection applies for protective measures in regards to the children X and Y. There is a concurrent request as concerns their sibling, Z. [ 2 ] All recognize that Mr. B is the biological father of both children, although his paternity is only confirmed on Y’s birth certificate. Upon agreement of the parties and evaluation of the evidence, the Court declares Mr. B a party to the proceedings in regards to the child X. Within the present judgment, referrals to Mr.

B as the father will refer to his role in regards to both children. [ 3 ] After confirming the parties consent, the Court proceeds jointly in the situation of the three siblings. [ 4 ] At the hearing on the applications for protection, the Director produces an agreement having intervened between the parties (D-10) and requests that the Court endorse such.

After consigning their admissions, the parents recognize the situation of endangerment as well as the agreement on the application of protective measures, as detailed in the agreement. [ 5 ] The attorney for the children, acting in virtue of a legal mandate, subscribes to the evaluation and orientation proposed.

Evidence [ 6 ] The children reside with their parents and their older sibling, Z. [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection, through their delegate [Autochthon] Child and Family Services (ACFS), intervenes in the situation of the children following an argument between the parents on September 18, 2017 which provokes Z and her mother to leave the family home. The children X and Y remain home. [ 8 ] At school the day after this incident, Z is upset and crying. With much hesitation, she reports that her step-father, Mr. B, is abusive and always yelling.

She can leave the house on a regular basis when he is angry and that this has been ongoing for years. She fears for her safety as well as that of her mother. [ 9 ] Z also reveals that Mr. B can be verbally abusive towards her and rejecting.

[ 10 ] She repeats the same facts to an ACFS worker. She adds that she is afraid to return home should her mother and Mr. B learn what she has said. [ 11 ] When the caseworker presents herself to the family home, the parents immediately takes a defensive posture. They repeatedly deny any substantial argument the day before and refuse to allow the worker to enter or meet with the children. They blame Z of making the report and discredit the information received, referring to her puberty as bringing on her <moodiness> and defiant behaviours. [ 12 ] The following day, the caseworker again meets the child.

As well as confirming a dysfunctional family environment and providing many details of such, Z reports her ongoing emotional distress, which is also causing her to lack focus at school. [ 13 ] She further reports that the preceding night, she goes to sleep at her cousin’s home because her mother was upset and yelling at her for having spoken to ACFS. [ 14 ] Both parents have a complex personal history and background. Mr.

B reports suffering from a traumatic brain injury which renders him less able to control emotional outbursts. [ 15 ] In the past, they both participate in services to resolve their personal and conjugal issues (dependency, anger management, conjugal therapy, etc). [ 16 ] ACFS retains a situation of endangerment in reason of psychological ill-treatment. [ 17 ] On September 22, 2017, the Director applies immediate protective measures to place the children in foster care.

When advised of the removal, the parents react vehemently, denying all allegations of violence, denigrating social services and violently opposing the caseworker (yelling, physical violence). [ 18 ] After hearing the parties, the Court confirms the placement of the children on a provisional basis.

The parents demonstrating a concerted position discrediting the intervention as well as rejecting any cooperation, the Court further renders various orders seeking that the children maintain contacts while keeping them at bay of the intensity of the conflicts surrounding them. [ 19 ] Since that time, the children visit their parents on a weekly basis, with supervision. These are positive and an affectionate relationship is observed.

The children ask to go home. [ 20 ] The parents mobilize themselves in view of the children’s return. [ 21 ] Initially, their efforts focus on the discredit of ACFS, minimizing Z’s version of events and seeking allies to challenge the intervention.

This knee-jerk reaction, which privileges their own needs for justification and retribution instead of the children’s needs, underlines their fragile parental capacities. [ 22 ] Over time, their traditional beliefs and recourse to community services and supports help them to progress in their views. [ 23 ] Although they remain distrustful of ACFS and deny numerous allegations, the parents are able to recognize their ongoing conflictual relationship and the negative effects on their children.

They invest themselves in community services aiming to support them in making changes as to their dynamic and further maintain a serene environment for their children. [ 24 ] Amid these, the Court retains more significantly that the parents attend parenting ( [...] ) and relationship counselling. The father also undertakes the Caring Dad’s program which offers < a group intervention program for fathers who have abused or neglected their children, exposed them to abuse of their mothers, or are at risk of doing so> (Exhibit P-3).

Analysis and decision [ 25 ] Situation of endangerment [ 26 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court retains a situation of psychological ill-treatment which endangers the security and the development of the children, retaining particularly the following proven facts: • The parent’s conjugal relationship is chronically unstable. • For many years, the children can be witness to conflicts and domestic violence in the family environment. This conjugal violence is mostly verbal (denigration, yelling) but can escalate to physical violence.

A number of police interventions are necessary in regards to domestic abuse. • In 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, the children are the subject of protective measures in reason of psychological ill-treatment due to exposure to domestic violence. • Notwithstanding services, there is a recurrence and intensification of the problematic issues, demonstrating chronicity. • The children suffer distress resulting from this situation, more intensely as concerns Z. • The parents offer limited recognition and collaboration as to the challenges of their conjugal relationship as well as the impacts on their children. • The parents mistrust outside interventions and have little recourse to social or community services. • The parents both have a complex personal history which can impede their capacities to deal in a healthy manner with their challenges, both on a personal and family level.

[ 27 ] Protective measures [ 28 ] The objective of the intervention is to ensure that the children benefit from a healthy, serene and secure family environment. [ 29 ] Although there is no question that the provisional decision to remove the children from their family environment was an accurate reflection of the intensity and ongoing nature of the dysfunctional dynamic, substantial changes have since occurred. [ 30 ] The evidence demonstrates that a comprehensive structure of aid and services now surrounds the family.

The parents commit to continuing to have recourse to these. [ 31 ] The Court refers to certain passages of a letter signed by the parents, underlining their vision and commitments (Exhibit P-5): Along with practicing our Traditional ways we will agree to be monitored by ACFS and abide by their recommendations made in accordance with what they feel is necessary. (par. 2 infini) [B] and I have no concrete excuses for our ignorance in years past leading to the present for not realizing that three sets of eyes were watching and listening to the discontent between us as a couple.

Our eyes and ears were shock opened when our oldest child felt she had no recourse but to confide in outside sources. We also believe that our children should be part of our further healing and to be witness to our success as parents, partners and role models. (par. 3) [ 32 ] In November, the parties accept a mediation process with the objective of developing an intervention plan. ACFS, the child Z, other family members and support persons contribute to these discussions. This results in an agreement which the parties agree be endorsed within the judgment to intervene (Exhibit D-10).

As well as specific measures destined to maintain family harmony, the parents agree to continue to use all supportive services indefinitely and to follow their service plan with ACFS. [ 33 ] This process is a testament to the social and family values which unite the […] community and constitute one of its greatest strengths. [ 34 ] The Court concludes that it is possible to effectuate the rehabilitation of the conjugal and family dynamic, with the accompaniment and structure of such services.

The parent’s commitment to change and recognition of their children’s needs convince the Court that this process can continue while the children remain in their care. [ 35 ] Notwithstanding, the past history demonstrates that numerous elements of precariousness remain.

Not only must there be rehabilitation of the parent’s capacities, the durability of the changes must also be promoted, requiring monitoring of the family environment to verify the parent’s ability to integrate the tools put in place, but to also maintain a healthy family environment for their children and prioritize their needs. [ 36 ] After considering the evidence, the Court endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the children's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 37 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the children remain with their parents; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively to the measures that are put forward to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 43 ] TAKES ACT of the agreement having intervened between the parties as of the November 9, 2017 and ORDERS the parties to adhere thereto; [ 44 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for father / Mr. B

Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 9, 2017