2021 QCCQ 12548, 2021 QCCQ 12548

Protection de la jeunesse — 214035 2021 QCCQ 12548 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-006113-198 760-41-006112-190 760-41-006111-192 DATE: April 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2018 Y , born on […], 2017 Z , born on […], 2013 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant and.

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 ] A protection order is in force until September 16, 2021 as concerns the children in relation to their exposure to a parental conflict and educational neglect. [ 2 ] As well as various measures of aid and rehabilitation, this judgment provides the reintegration of the children in their mother’s care since December 2021. [ 3 ] As concerns the children’s access to their father, such is determined following agreement between the parties and under the supervision of a third party chosen by the Director.

The Court allows the partial or complete lifting of the supervision, also upon agreement. [ 4 ] Alleging that there is no consensus between the parties, the Director seeks the partial revision of the order in view of establishing a minimal structure for the contacts, namely that they take place two hours every two weeks and this, following two meetings with the father. [ 5 ] While recognizing the need to clarify the situation, the parents offer differing views as to the access issue. [ 6 ] While the father seeks more stable contacts, the mother considers that before structured access can resume, the father must show sustained efforts to work towards the rehabilitation of the situation. [ 7 ] The attorney for the children submits that a clear way forward is in the children’s best interests. [ 8 ] The question before the Court is as follows: What are the children’s best interests as concerns their contacts with their father? [ 9 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the expectations be clarified as to the father’s involvement not only as to his children, but also in the rehabilitative process, as these are both intimately linked.

Context [ 10 ] As provided in the last judgment, the children progressively return to their mother’s care. Since December, they live with her

on a full-time basis. [ 11 ] The mother continues to make significant strides to stabilize her personal situation and reclaim her parental role. She cooperates with the follow-up and is proactive in seeking help to face any difficulties. [ 12 ] Such is not the case as concerns the father. [ 13 ] Overwhelmed by feelings of frustration and anger, he is little available for the rehabilitative process, this to include moving forward towards effective co-parenting. [ 14 ] In November 2020, he informs the Director that he will no longer be present for the scheduled supervised visits.

As such, the children have not had organized contacts with their father since that time. [ 15 ] Concurrently, the evidence demonstrates that the father repeatedly seeks to maintain contacts with the mother and his children outside the purview of the Court order, resulting in police interventions, criminal accusations and ultimately, the continued fractioning of the family dynamic. [ 16 ] These behaviours are the foundation of the dysfunctional family dynamic which justifies the application of protective measures. [ 17 ] At the hearing, the father testifies to the reasons he suspended his participation and contacts.

He concedes that he needs to focus on his children and accepts to fully participate in the plan put forward by the caseworker to this effect. Analysis and decision [ 18 ] The father has parental capabilities and clearly loves his children.

In the past, he has been able to participate actively in the services. [ 19 ] Notwithstanding this, since the last judgment he has chosen to prioritize his own needs by largely withdrawing himself from his children’s lives and not investing in the follow-up or services. [ 20 ] His lack of consistency and choices are not only negatively impacting them, but serve to sabotage the efforts to maintain their healthy family environment. [ 21 ] Without a doubt, the children deserve more and better from their father. [ 22 ] At this juncture, the focus is to rebuild trust between all involved in order to attain a primary objective is that the father be a positive part of his children’s lives and then, eventually more fully reprise his parental role. [ 23 ] The evolution of the situation relies on the father’s participation in the measures put in place, which is in fact an order in place. [ 24 ] While providing a way forward, the Court provides safeguards to avoid that the children be again subject to inconsistency, namely allowing the suspension of contacts should the father be absent to two visitation periods without valid reason.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] PARTIALLY REVISES the order rendered on September 16, 2020; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be following agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director and conditional the following : i. Two (2) consecutive meetings between the Director and the father; ii. The elaboration of a calendar of contacts; iii. The elaboration of a contract of visits; iv.

The father’s sustained cooperation with the follow-up; [ 28 ] In absence of an agreement ORDERS that the contacts take place once every two weeks at the offices of the Director for two hours; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to suspend the father’s access should he miss two access periods; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the coordinates of the children and their mother remain confidential with respect to the father; [ 31 ] WITHDRAWS the Director’s intention to make unannounced visits; [ 32 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions rendered on September 16, 2020; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE until September 16, 2021; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment;

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Julie Langlois Attorney for the Applicant Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Hearing date: April 28, 2021 Signature date: