2020 QCCQ 6103, 2020 QCCQ 6103

Protection de la jeunesse — 203509 2020 QCCQ 6103 JR1585 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-009730-195 DATE : May 13, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONORABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], youth protection workers duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A , Applicant -and- X, born on [...], 2005 Child A Mother -and- B Father J U D G M E N T

Section 38 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .) [ 1 ] The child, aged 14 years old, lives with his mother, sister and his three adult brothers. [ 2 ] The parents were born in [Country A]. They have five children together.

The father moved to Quebec in 2001 under refugee status and the mother and the children followed in 2005. [ 3 ] The parents are separated and the father now lives in [Town A]. [ 4 ] The father also has three other children with Ms. C who is the mother’s younger sister. [ 5 ] On [...], 2018, the father is declared guilty of several counts of crimes with violence of which the mother’s sister and two of her children are victims. He is released from prison at the end of May 2019 and there remain many concerns regarding the mother and the children’s safety.

[ 6 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents an application for protection considering a situation of endangerment due to a situation of educational neglect.

At the beginning of the intervention, there was also a situation of risk of physical abuse that the Director of Youth Protection no longer creates a situation of endangerment, particularly because the father has left the province. [ 7 ] The mother and the child agree with the request of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] Since the Director of Youth Protection’s intervention, the father has left the province of Quebec and his lawyer informs the Court that he has no intention of returning.

The father also has no evidence to offer regarding the application and does not want to testify. [ 9 ] The proof reveals that following his release from prison, the father went back to live with the mother. [ 10 ] In June 2019, the child is met for the first time at school by the Director of Youth Protection. He explains that his father was in prison for a long period and now that he is back home, he seems different. The child states that he used to get angry quickly over little things, could yell and throw things.

Since he is back, it’s going well. [ 11 ] The child is aware that his father has another “girlfriend” but he only met her once. [ 12 ] In July 2019, the Director of Youth protection meets the parents with the assistance of an interpreter. The father denies all form of violence towards members of his family and explains that he went to prison for nothing. He adds that he loves his children and would never hurt them. [ 13 ] As for his other wife’s sister, he mentions that this relationship was a mistake and that he was never violent towards them.

He doeas not want to see her or the children anymore. [ 14 ] The mother also denies any violence from the father and considers that he was in prison for no reason. [ 15 ] However, the Director of Youth Protection was informed that in 2010, the mother wrote a detailed deposition to the police saying that her husband had been violent towards her.

She eventually withdrew her complaint. [ 16 ] On August 22, 2019, the father’s probation officer still considers that the father is a high risk for public safety [1] : (…) En regard de l’ensemble des informations mises notre disposition, il semble clair que monsieur B rumine toujours des affects négatifs quant à la victime au présent dossier. Depuis de nombreuses années, le sujet a instauré un climat de possession, de contrôle, de domination et d’intimidation.

Considérant la gravité objective des délits, la fréquence des passages à l’acte, les préjudices causés aux victimes, la faible tolérance aux frustrations, l’absence de capacité d’introspection et la totale déresponsabilisation du justiciable quant à ses agirs, nous sommes d’avis que le potentiel de violence et de dangerosité est toujours présent et donc, non négligeable.

Nous jugeons donc que monsieur B représente un risque potentiel pour la sécurité publique, mais plus précisément pour les victimes au présent dossier pour lesquelles le risque homicidaire nous semble présent. [ 17 ] In January 2020, the father takes the decision to leave Quebec and moves to [Town A]. [ 18 ] On March 3, 2020, the Director of Youth Protection receives a report indicating that since the father left the house, the child’s older brothers use physical corrections when he does not do what they ask, especially when he makes mistakes in his homework. [ 19 ] The child is in a special program at school because of academic issues. [ 20 ] On March 16, 2020, the child is entrusted provisionally to his paternal aunt by the Tribunal.

He stayed there only for a few days because the aunt felt she could no longer take care of him because of his difficult behaviour. [ 21 ] Following this new report, the Director of Youth Protection meets the mother and the older brothers in the presence of an interpreter. [ 22 ] The older brothers mention that the child has some behavioural difficulties and that they are trying to help the mother of trying to help him change his bad behaviours.

They deny the use of violence. [ 23 ] In order to improve the situation, The Director of Youth Protection proposed several options such as: an educator, the brother being less involved with discipline and a tutor to help with the child’s academic difficulties. The family agrees with all the suggestions. [ 24 ] On March 20, 2020, the child was returned home with his mother following a new provisional measures of the Tribunal. [ 25 ] Since then, the child mentions that the situation is improving.

An educator is already involved with the family. [2] (…) The Director of Youth Protection analysis of the allegations of violence from the older brothers is the following: With regards to the accusations of physical abuse, the mother and the brothers deny the allegations. When we discussed the situation with X, he provided a couple of examples with minimal context. Though we suspect that the incidents probably occurred, it proved to be difficult to obtain any peripheral information to declare the facts are founded with regards to the criteria of the Youth Protection Law .

Furthermore, the information provided is tainted by the child’s conflict of loyalty between his parents and their mutual accusations that they are

negatively influencing their son. We, therefore, consider that the facts are not founded with regards to a situation of physical abuse. However, the information collected brought us to consider a situation of educational neglect. The family has noted that X has academic (ex. learning delays) and behavioural difficulties (ex. stealing, aggressive behaviours). There are clear expectations that X invests his time in improving his academic difficulties and when he doesn’t act accordingly, the brothers admit that they can yell and scream at him to do his work.

As for the behavioural issues, again, they can yell and scream and occasionally give a light tap on the arm, believing that this will stop the behaviour. The older brothers seem to have taken on a parenting role with X, which appears to have blurred the boundaries within the family. Therefore, we consider that the facts are founded in regards to a situation of educational neglect. [ 26 ] The Director of Youth Protection had a few contacts with the father over the phone.

He once told he wanted his son to come to live with him in [Town A], however, the mother refuses. [ 27 ] The child is in need of protection because of a situation of educational neglect at his mother’s house.

Despite the difficulties of the child, the family’s dynamic needs to change and the mother needs help for doing so. [ 28 ] Considering the cultural context and the language barrier, it is recommended that the Director of Youth Protection seeks counsel or assistance to “la Maison A.” [ 29 ] Even though the situation of serious risk of physical abuse by the father is not present at the moment due to the absence of the father, the Court is convinced that the father has been violent and that the Director of Youth Protection must be very vigilant to ensure the protection of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the Application; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger due to educational neglect; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his maternal environment; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be following an agreement between the parties; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the DYP help and counselling with “La Maison de la Famille” in [Town B]; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment rendered; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE for a period of 9 months ; ________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q.

Mtre Isabelle Lyonnais Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Karine Pichette Attorney for the child Mtre Patrick Cormier Attorney for the mother Me Gisèle Tremblay Attorney for the father Date of the hearing : May 13, 2020 Judgment written and signed: June 22, 2020