2018 QCCQ 20676, 2018 QCCQ 20676

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811470 2018 QCCQ 20676 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-029934-155 DATE : December 5, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2008 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT – CORRECTION [42] (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on September 28, 2017, entrusting the child X to the mother along with a social follow-up and various other corrective measures for one year. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that there has been little progress with respect to the parental conflict to which the child continues to be exposed.

Although visits with the father have been increased to the equivalent of joint custody, the objective of effective co-parenting has not been achieved. Furthermore, the relationship between the mother and the child has suffered over the past year and requires continued intervention. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is asking the Court to entrust the child to the parents’ care on the basis of a joint custody arrangement along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures.

Concerned with the deterioration of the mother/daughter relationship, the Director is further recommending that the mother undergo a psychological assessment and to follow the recommendations resulting therefrom. [ 4 ] The mother admits the majority of the allegations contained in the motion and concurs with the Director’s recommendations. She asks however that these measures be ordered on an interim basis until June 2018. Expressing concerns about the father’s capacity to adequately parent the child, she is nonetheless willing to attempt such an arrangement.

On the other hand, should joint custody prove unsuitable, the mother intends to request full time custody of the child prior to a final judgment on the measures. [ 5 ] The father admits all of the allegations and supports the Director’s position. He expresses concern regarding the relationship between the child and the mother and is of the opinion that the mother requires therapeutic intervention. [ 6 ] According to the child’s lawyer, the child expresses a preference for increased time with her father. She is fully aware of the parental conflict which saddens her.

The child’s lawyer supports the measures on an interim basis in order to see how the situation develops. The Situation [ 7 ] Since the prior decision, the parenting conflict persists in various forms. The path to co-parenting continues to be strewn with obstacles ranging from petty, uncooperative behaviours to accusations of abuse or deliberate alienation.

[ 8 ] The parents’ acknowledge the impact of their disputes on the child but appear unable to find concrete ways to minimise her conflict of loyalty. The communication book continues to be used but with relative success. Reproaches and recriminations make up the essence of their communications; past issues resurface and cause further turmoil within the family dynamics. Moreover, the child tends to manipulate the situation to her advantage. [ 9 ] For example, the child does not easily manage her mother’s academic expectations of her.

In fact, the evidence reveals that the mother places an inordinate amount of pressure on the child to succeed without sufficient consideration for her significant learning disabilities.

In this context, the child reports to the father that the mother physically abuses her, knowing that any such mention will instantaneously provoke a strong reaction from him and provide her with a form of support. [ 10 ] Although there is in fact a relational problem between the mother and her daughter at this time, the child exaggerates and dramatizes their issues to her advantage, obtaining her father’s support in the process. [ 11 ] Furthermore, the father’s partner, C, was implicated in a troubling incident in which she again overstepped a clear boundary.

Upon hearing the child’s complaints about the mother, Ms. C took it upon herself to assist the child in writing a letter exposing her recriminations. The father then contacted the social worker regarding the issue but failed to report Ms. C’s role in the matter, allowing the worker to believe that the child had written it on her own. [ 12 ] In his testimony, the father claims that he was unaware of Ms. C’s role when he transmitted the letter. He states that he only learned afterwards of what had occurred.

In any case, he expresses grave concerns for X’s safety in the mother’s home and considers that her complaints should be taken seriously. [ 13 ] The Court reminds the father that his ignorance of Ms. C’s involvement does not absolve him of his responsibility to ensure that his daughter is protected from such an inappropriate and disturbing interference. The father’s efforts to ensure that Ms. C does not contribute to the conflict have clearly been insufficient. [ 14 ] The court encourages the father to take a more balanced approach in dealing with his daughter’s complaints.

Supporting her exaggerations without question allows her to continue manipulating the situation without a true understanding of the potential consequences. [ 15 ] That being said, this unfortunate incident should not serve to convolute the issue of the relationship problems that do in fact exist between the mother and her daughter. Similarly, the child’s tendency to exaggerate should not have the effect of rendering her complaints entirely unworthy of belief.

On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that they are symptomatic of a real problem that must be addressed. [ 16 ] The mother’s fear of losing her daughter to the father appears to be a driving force in her interaction with the child. The evidence suggests that she projects her anxieties onto the child, relentlessly questioning her thereby causing her stress and unhappiness. Physical ailments such as headaches and stomach aches are attributed to the child’s emotional upheaval. [ 17 ] Moreover, the mother tends to express her academic expectations in a manner that negatively affects the child’s self-esteem.

Although the mother is sincere in wanting her child to succeed academically, her intensity can be overwhelming and at times, inappropriate. This lack of sensitivity contributes to provoking the very rejection that she fears the most. [ 18 ] Her daughter has expressed wanting to live with the father. Citing the lack of structure in the father’s home as a reason for this preference is too simplistic an explanation and fails to consider the child’s very real distress.

The Court is of the opinion that the mother must demonstrate a better capacity for introspection in order to begin repairing her relationship with her daughter. [ 19 ] Furthermore, it is vital that the mother turn her focus away from the father and concentrate rather on her own personal situation.

The nature of her testimony reveals important difficulties in her capacity to adequately exercise her parental authority. [ 20 ] Although the mother denies many of the child’s complaints, her passive resistance to the intervention (for example, failing to provide confirmatory information regarding the therapy she claims to be receiving) impacts her credibility. [ 21 ] Furthermore, the mother’s failure to ensure the child’s consistent attendance in therapy is perplexing. On this issue, the mother’s explanations are unsatisfactory.

The child has clearly expressed her appreciation for these sessions and they should have been prioritized. [ 22 ] In the course of his work with the family, the social worker has observed significant difficulties in the mother/daughter dynamics yet working with the mother remains challenging. Conclusion [ 23 ] The court concludes that the Director’s intervention remains necessary as a result of the limited improvement since the prior judgment. [ 24 ] The nature of the measures proposed is not in issue.

The only question is whether an interim measure is preferable in order to see how the situation develops. [ 25 ] The Court fails to see the advantage of an interim measure. The issues are clearly identified as are the services required to address them. [ 26 ] The parents each have work to do in the interests of their daughter. The recurrence of past issues is alarming as is the persistence

of the parental conflict. The evidence reveals little good faith on either

part in working towards concrete solutions. In these circumstances, neither parent is able to measure the potential impact of their actions on the child, yet significant difficulties with her behaviour are certainly foreseeable if no substantial changes are made. [ 27 ] Of equal concern is the deterioration of the mother’s relationship with her daughter.

The mother is encouraged to focus her energies in the right place. [ 28 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 29 ] THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her parents on the basis of a joint custody agreement to be determined by the parents and the Director, failing which, the Director will determined the modalities of the entrustment in accordance with the child’s best interest; [ 33 ] ORDERS that both parents report periodically to the Director on the measures that they apply on their own regard or with respect to their child to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 34 ] ORDERS that both parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to any parental conflict or any denigrating remarks directed towards one or the other; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother is currently undergoing a regular therapeutic process; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother authorizes the Director to have access to the name of the therapist, her attendance of therapy as well as the progress without disclosing content in the therapeutic process; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents continue their therapy for their personal issues; [ 39 ] ORDERS that psychological services be provided to the child until no longer deemed necessary by the treating professionals; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE until July 30, 201 9 .

SIGNED IN TOWN A On January 31, 2019 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Claudine Du Sablon Attorney for the child Me Maria Battaglia Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: December 5, 2018 KO/lf