2023 QCCQ 8641, 2023 QCCQ 8641

Protection de la jeunesse — 231711 2023 QCCQ 8641 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-037862-208 DATE: May 11, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2008 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise and extend the order rendered by the Honourable Guy Lecompte on February 25, 2021. [ 2 ] Today, the Director recommends that the adolescent be maintained in a rehabilitation centre and that support measures be ordered until June 21, 2024. [ 3 ] The mother agrees with the Director’s plan. [ 4 ] The father and the adolescent agree for the placement to last until the end of December 2023.

They suggest that a progressive reintegration be put in place between September and December 2023. They also wish for the adolescent to spend more time at the father’s home during the summer of 2023. [ 5 ] The adolescent agrees to take

part in individual therapy but is not willing to participate in family counseling. QUESTIONS IN LITIGATION [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the adolescent’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 7 ] What should be the placement’s duration? CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS The parental and family conflicts [ 8 ] Until October 24, 2022, the adolescent remained entrusted to the care of her father. It has not been possible to return to a shared custody model. [ 9 ] The adolescent remained exposed to the parental and family conflicts.

[ 10 ] On May 9, 2021, Y, the adolescent’s brother, called Info-Santé. He wanted to calm his mother who was crying as the adolescent decided not to visit her on Mother’s Day. Later that day, the mother contacted the police reporting that the father had made death threats towards Y. During the intervention, the police was unable to interview Y alone; the mother kept whispering that the father had made death threats. [ 11 ] At the time, Y never mentioned to the police that his father had made threats.

During his testimony, Y mentioned that his father threatened him saying: “ If you don’t get out of the car, I’m gonna kill you .” [ 12 ] At the hearing, Y stated that he was the one who had made the 911 call with regards to the alleged threats from the father. This information is contradicted by the police report [1] and by Ms. C’s testimony. [ 13 ] Y also mentioned that it was impossible for his mother to hear the threats. He clarified that he was the one who told his mother what had happened. Ms.

C testified to the effect that the mother had reported to her that she had heard the father’s threats, which was highly unlikely as the mother was about 30 metres from the car. [ 14 ] During her testimony, Ms. C mentioned that, during the police intervention, the mother kept asking what would happen regarding the adolescent’s custody if a complaint was made. [ 15 ] On October 4, 2022, following a fire in the father’ house, the father refused to communicate with the mother regarding the adolescent’s situation and safety.

During his testimony, the father apologized to the mother recognizing that he should have communicated with her to let her know that their daughter was safe. [ 16 ] On October 11, 2022, the father brought the adolescent to the hospital. The adolescent had been anxious about missing a lot of school and had stomach-ache. Mrs. [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker, reported that the adolescent had also made comments about harming herself the same morning. Following his workday, the father brought his daughter to the hospital as she had promised not to harm herself.

This information was denied by the father and the adolescent. They mentioned that the adolescent only wanted to talk to someone about her issues; that she wanted support to be less anxious and stressed. [ 17 ] At the hospital, the mother complained that the father had not notified her about the adolescent’s self-harming comments.

During his testimony, the father reported that he felt attacked by the mother’s comments and that the adolescent eventually walked away from the situation. [ 18 ] At the time of the last Court decision, both parents expressed wanting to collaborate with the Director to work on their relationship and co-parenting. They also agreed to participate in family therapy. [ 19 ] Unfortunately, the family has been unable to come to an agreement regarding family therapy.

The parents have agreed to participate in separate therapeutic process with the adolescent. [ 20 ] The parents have difficulties recognizing their own responsibility with regards to the family dynamics and blame the other parent or the extended family. [ 21 ] Up until January 2022, the mother’s collaboration with the youth protection worker, Mr. [Social Worker 2] was difficult. Due to health concerns, the mother refused for meetings to take place in her home. She also insisted that all meetings with the youth protection worker be recorded.

The mother refused to work with the educator and perceived that she was treated unfairly by the Director. [ 22 ] During her testimony, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] reported that at first, the father and the adolescent met with her reluctantly and were making excuses not to come to meetings. The parents’ alienating behaviours [ 23 ] The mother has been insistent that the father and the paternal extended family have been alienating the adolescent from her side of the family. This information has been denied by the father. [ 24 ] Dr.

Damyan Edwards, psychologist, was mandated to assess the dynamics between the adolescent and the parents. Although Dr. Edwards observed alienating behaviours from both parents with regards to the question of parental alienation, his findings were inconclusive. In his report, he mentions the following [2] : “The (adolescent) is a 14-year-old girl diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotions in the context of parent-child relational problems and an anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified; c.f. Child psychiatry report ). The (adolescent) is caught in a severe parental conflict between (her parents).

The longstanding nature of the parental conflict appears to have contributed to (the adolescent) distancing herself from her mother and she seems to entertain a somewhat confused impression about her. […] Furthermore, (the adolescent) appears to express her own unique thoughts and worries about rejecting her mother that do not appear to be borrowed by her father. […] Thus, (the adolescent’

s) resistance to connect with her mother appears to stem from fears that are rooted in the longstanding nature of the abuses she experienced related to the parental conflicts, rather than an alignment with her father. Taken together, there are signs of desire for (the adolescent) to connect with her mother and she has shown more willingness in the last couple of months to repair their relationship since being placed in a neutral setting. However, she is unable to do so adequately as both (the adolescent’

s) mother and father continue to expose her to the parental conflicts, and they lack the capacity in understanding how their actions contribute to her psychological dysfunction.” [ 25 ] The father has not always fully and pro-actively encouraged the adolescent to have contacts with the mother.

[ 26 ] The father also had difficulties implementing structure for his daughter. He does not always appear to be the one in charge; letting his daughter make important decisions. [ 27 ] Mr. [Social Worker 2] reported that, at times, during social follow-up meetings, the mother would not let the adolescent complete her statement and would speak over her. She would sometimes yell, a statement that is denied by the mother. The youth protection worker’s version corresponds to the adolescent’s perceptions of meetings.

The adolescent’s contacts with her mother [ 28 ] The adolescent still had difficulties adjusting to functioning in her mother’s house. She complained about not having her personal space. She also reported that, at times, her mother would text her non-stop. In his report, the youth protection worker reports the following [3] : “It’s been observed by the undersigned that (the adolescent) feels overwhelmed at times by the intensity and intrusiveness of her mother, brother, and maternal grandmother. (The adolescent) sometimes struggles to cope with the difficult family dynamic.

The undersigned has told (the mother) on several occasions that her intensity is pushing (the adolescent) away.” [ 29 ] At some point in time, the mother mentioned not being interested in having visits with her daughter if they were too short in duration. The mother blamed her daughter and the Director for having less visitation time with her. [ 30 ] Following the event of May 9, 2021, the adolescent blocked her mother and maternal grandmother’s phone numbers. Her visits became less frequent until June and July 2021, when they began improving.

In August 2021, their frequency again diminished. [ 31 ] In September 2021, the adolescent and her mother started a therapeutic process with Dr. Aylward at the [Hospital A]. Dr. Aylward reported that the sessions were not easy but that they were progressing well. This process was stopped by the adolescent. [ 32 ] Following a contact on October 30, 2021, the adolescent decided to completely stop visits with her mother. Despite many discussions with Mr. [Social Worker 2] the adolescent maintained her position.

During his testimony, Mr. [Social Worker 2] mentioned that the adolescent was never fully able to provide clear and concrete justifications for her decision. [ 33 ] During her testimony, the adolescent tried to provide a rationale for her decision to cease contacts with her mother, mentioning: • “I don’t really want to have a full relationship.” • “I don’t like the way (my mother) acts. (…) She tends to overreact. (…) She plays the victim.” • “It’s never her fault.” • “My mother is putting all the blame on me.” • “Before, she was always questioning what happened to me and getting mad at me.” • “She kept asking the same questions.” • “She kept arguing (…) talking over me.” [ 34 ] In February 2022, the adolescent and the mother spoke to each other on the phone for the adolescent’s birthday.

On February 22, 2022, the mother provided the youth protection worker with a letter for her daughter. [ 35 ] During the summer of 2022, the adolescent did not accept any of her mother’s proposed activity. [ 36 ] On November 2, 15 and 30, 2022, supervised visits were organised. The adolescent appeared to put an effort to engage in the visits. [ 37 ] Supervised visits were eventually organized between the adolescent and her mother every second week. Recently, the adolescent has appeared more open and willing to connect with her mother during her visits.

The adolescent’s school attendance [ 38 ] The adolescent missed school on numerous days due to stomach issues. On October 6, 2022, school officials reported that they were doing their best to support the family and improve the adolescent’s attendance. [ 39 ] On October 17 and 19, 2022, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing. Two additional days were set to continue the hearing. In the meantime, the adolescent was maintained in her father’s care, under strict conditions. [ 40 ] Contrary to her undertaking, the adolescent failed to attend school.

On October 26, 2022, the Tribunal ordered her compulsory provisional foster care in a rehabilitation centre. [ 41 ] The adolescent was able to attend and function within the school program provided by [group home A].

The adolescent’s placement [ 42 ] Following the October 26, 2022 hearing, the adolescent was placed at [group home B]. While in placement at [group home B], she was unable to return to [Academy A]. She was unwilling to implement recommendations and strategies that would facilitate her school reintegration. [ 43 ] On December 1 st , 2022, the adolescent was admitted to [group home A]. It was observed that she adjusted well to this new environment. She actively took

part in the program offered and followed expectations. [ 44 ] On December 16, 2022, the Tribunal ordered that the status quo be maintained, taking judicial notice that, during the Holidays, the adolescent would spend a 3-day visit with her father. [ 45 ] Both parents have worked closely with the group home team. [ 46 ] During her testimony, Ms. [Social Worker 1] reported that the adolescent had been working hard on herself, but that she needed to solidify her gains and work on a deeper level.

Her expectations for the parents were as followed: • the father needed to work on making supportive comments about the mother and on providing structure and guidance for the adolescent in a balanced way; • the mother needed to work on her listening skills and being able to better respond to the adolescent’s emotions; • both parents should be able to communicate in a civil manner and be in the same room at the same time. [ 47 ] During his testimony, Dr. Edwards supported the duration of placement recommended by the Director.

He noted that the adolescent had made quite a few gains in the neutral setting offered by the group home and that there was a risk for her to return to past problematic behaviours if the reintegration to the father’s environment was done prematurely. [ 48 ] At this point, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the adolescent should remain entrusted in a neutral specialized environment such as a [rehabilitation centre A]. The work that is required from every member of the family will take time. The process needs to be progressive.

The Director will have to act with caution to ensure that the gains are maintained. [ 49 ] The adolescent and the father submit that the adolescent could continue attending school in [rehabilitation centre A] following her return to the father’s residence in December 2023. Considering transportation and the centre’s rehabilitation program this plan is not realistic. [ 50 ] Placement at [rehabilitation centre A] includes more then schooling. It will be important for the adolescent to take

part in the various rehabilitation activities offered by the centre. [ 51 ] The youth protection worker and the [rehabilitation centre A] team are in a good position to continuously assess the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent and her parents.

THEREFORE, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 52 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 53 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the adolescent is still endangered; [ 54 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on February 25, 2021; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary; [ 57 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the continuation of visits between the adolescent and her mother; [ 58 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent and her mother participate in therapy to address their issues in an effort to rebuild the mother-daughter relationship; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the adolescent continue to attend school daily unless accompanied by a medical note or for religious reasons; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection take steps for the adolescent to receive psychological support and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the adolescent's agreement to this; [ 61 ] ORDERS that both parents refrain from denigration and exposing the adolescent to any form of parental conflict; [ 62 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents participate in a parenting course and follow through with the recommendations of the psychosocial assessment with a parental alienation component that was conducted by Dr.

Damyan Edwards; [ 63 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with the treating professionals working with the family, including the services of an educator if necessary;

[ 64 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 65 ] THE WHOLE until June 21, 2024; [ 66 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on May 11, 2023 /cd Mtre Marie-Ève Guindon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Nadia Sabik Dates of hearing: October 17 and 19 2022; April 26 and 27, 2023