2021 QCCQ 12560, 2021 QCCQ 12560

Protection de la jeunesse — 214047 2021 QCCQ 12560 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-006373-206 760-41-006371-200 760-41-006372-208 DATE: January 13, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2013 Y , born on […], 2011 Z , born on […], 2006 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 ] Separated since 2014, the parents share custody of their three children in respect of a Superior Court judgment. [ 2 ] An agreement for voluntary measures intervenes with the Director of Youth Protection in September 2019, wherein the parties recognize that a persistent parental conflict and consequent inappropriate parenting impact the security and development of the children. [ 3 ] Alleging mitigated progress as to the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment, the Director seeks to pursue protective measures for 8 months in order to continue to accompany the children and their family. [ 4 ] The mother consents to the recommended evaluation and orientation, as does X and Y’s attorney, acting under a legal mandate. [ 5 ] Speaking through her attorney, Z accepts the Director’s continued implication as being “ a good thing ”.

She adds that although she is no longer exposed to conflicts, the family dynamic remains fraught by continued tensions. [ 6 ] While recognizing that co-parenting is an ongoing challenge, the father considers that the Director’s involvement is not justified as the parents now limit their communications. He will continue to cooperate should the Court determine that protective measures remain in force. [ 7 ] The issue is whether there is a foundation for the Director’s continued involvement. The Court concluding that such is the case, follows the elements justifying this decision.

Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Separated since 2014, the parents have been unable to effectively co-parent. Communications are limited. Mistrust and animosity define their exchanges. [ 9 ] Repeated litigation ensues. [ 10 ] The parents are implicated towards their children and maintain a positive bond with them, although they present very different parenting styles. This, and the lack of mutual trust and communication, results in an incoherence as to structure and routine for the children in their family environments. [ 11 ] The children are subjected, both directly and indirectly, to the ongoing parental conflicts.

Over time, this dysfunctional family

dynamic has a myriad of consequences on the children and their functioning. [ 12 ] The children clearly identify being aware of the parental conflict and their wish that this situation would change. [ 13 ] Z and X are particularly affected on an emotional level. [ 14 ] On two occasions, X is brought to the hospital for panic attacks.

The family conflict is diagnosed as being a contributing cause of her anxiety and somatic ailments. [ 15 ] The Director intervenes and voluntary measures are put in place in September 2019, providing a one-year follow-up in reason of psychological ill-treatment and educational neglect. [ 16 ] The parents participate in co-parenting meetings. Although they show a willingness to find solutions, their animosity often overwhelms their abilities to focus on their children’s best interests. Their communications remain minimal and strained. [ 17 ] Some progress is made.

The parents had better realize the impacts on their children and are now able to avoid confrontation in front them. [ 18 ] Other services are put in place. Since December 2019, Emilie and X benefit from a therapy through the Center A to help them deal with the impacts of their family dynamic.

An educator works with the family towards putting in place an adequate routine in both environments. [ 19 ] The Director decides to undertake proceedings when the father’s cooperation wanes and the children are seen to withdraw from the follow-up at his insistence. [ 20 ] At the hearing, the father’s position focuses on the history of the conflict with the mother and his role as a victim of parental alienation. Although the mother is more nuanced, her position also seems to mirror such feelings. [ 21 ] This is the reflection of the overall evidence to the effect that the parents remain anchored in their conflict.

Despite the Director’s involvement, the parents have yet to address the core issues which impede effective co-parenting and therefore, maintain their children in a situation of endangerment. [ 22 ] For the Court, the cessation or restriction of parental communication, while partially shielding the children, does little to distance them from the burden of the unresolved issues of their family dynamic. [ 23 ] Only when the parents have taken mutual responsibility for the situation and are able to shift their perceptions away from their conflict, will the path to rehabilitation be truly undertaken.

Their children’s development on the short and long term dictate no less. [ 24 ] Until such occurs, the Director’s orientation, including that the parents invest themselves in follow-ups in order to address their personal issues while making themselves more available to implementing constructive co-parenting, is an accurate reflection of the children’s best interests.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 26 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the children in danger for the following reasons: • Educational neglect (article 38b)1)iii) Youth Protection Act ) • Psychological ill-treatment (article 38c) Youth Protection Act ) [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their parents in accordance with the Superior Court order; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children’s regard, to put an end at the situation in which the security or development are in danger; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents and the children take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, particularly that the parents continue to participate in co-parenting meetings; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with the school as well as with the professionals of the Center A ; [ 31 ] TAKES ACT that the parents authorize such as well; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents undertake or pursue a follow up to work on their personal difficulties; [ 33 ] TAKES ACT of the father’s intention to go forward with such as soon as possible and to advise the Director of Youth Protection of the steps he takes; [ 34 ] TAKES ACT that an educator will be put in place in order to offer services to the children and their parents and this, for as long as required; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family;

[ 36 ] THE WHOLE for 8 months; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Mélissa Labine Attorney for the Applicant Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children (X and

Y) Me Gabriel Larose Attorney for the adolescent (

Z) Date of hearing: January 13, 2021 Signature date: March 23, 2021