2014 QCCQ 7357, 2014 QCCQ 7357

Protection de la jeunesse — 14385 2014 QCCQ 7357 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004267-129 760-41-004266-121 760-41-004268-127 DATE: February 14, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2003 Y , born on [...], 2006 Z , born on [...], 2008 Children DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- B -and- C JC0B11 Parents of the children ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents amended motions for revision and ex-tension of a decision rendered on August 16, 2012 concerning the siblings X, Y and Z. [ 2 ] The preceding judgment declares that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reason of psychological ill treatment, stemming primarily from tensions in the family environment and their exposure to conjugal violence.

The Court orders various protective measures for one year, while maintaining the children with their parents. [ 3 ] On May 2, 2013, the Court renders a provisional order entrusting the children to their mother and ordering the supervision of the father's contacts.

This situation stands until the final hearing, to the exception of the supervision of the father's contacts, which is partially withdrawn following agreement between the parties. [ 4 ] Positions [ 5 ] The Director alleges that the children's situation remains volatile in reason of the continuance of elements of psychological ill treatment, the parent's resistance to the measures and limited acknowledgement as to the sources of the endangerment.

The recommendations seek to revise and prolong the measures for 6 months, including entrusting the children to their mother and permitting access with the father following mutual agreement. As the parents seek to resume their common life, a progressive return of the father in the family unit is expected in order to better evaluate that effective changes are durable. [ 6 ] The father contests that the security and/or the development of the children remain in danger.

Should the Court make this determination, he asks that the measures permit that he reintegrates the family home and resume his parental role on a full-time basis. As to the length of the order, he agrees to 6 months if he can reintegrate the home, if not, asks the Court to consider a shorter period. He doesn't contest the other recommendations of the Director. [ 7 ] The mother accepts the extension of the measures, but submits that the joint and individual evolution of herself and her husband, permit that the couple reunite and jointly parent the children.

Barring that, she asks for more flexibility as to the father's contacts, in order to help as to the work and family schedule. [ 8 ] The children's attorney, after evaluating the evidence, agrees to the extension of protective measures for at least another six months.

She submits that the application of specific measures ensuring a regular follow-up of the family and its individual members, offers a safety net permitting that the father progressively return to the family unit, which is the reflection of the children's best interests. [ 9 ] Context [ 10 ] The family continues to suffer from the circumstances leading to the adoption of A, the youngest child. [ 11 ] The children question the caseworker concerning A and demonstrate anxiety in relation to his leaving the family.

The parents resist seeking psychological support for the children, insisting on the need to move forward.. [ 12 ] The family and conjugal dynamic continues to balance on the father's percep-tions and need to be the controlling member. He exhibits domineering tendencies; relentlessly questioning his wife about the contentious issues between them, notwithstanding that such creates tension and conflict.

He refuses to respect her sexual or personal limits. [ 13 ] The mother is able to recognize the inappropriate elements existing in the family dynamic, but fails to fully confront these, bowing before her husband's authority. [ 14 ] Although the parents participate in certain measures, their full cooperation is restrained by numerous factors, notably their mitigated recognition of the reasons justifying the intervention of the Director. [ 15 ] Notwithstanding the intervention of protective services, incidents of arguments in the presence of the children occur until October 2012, when the Director intervenes to underline the need that the children not be confronted by their arguments, nor be the objects of threats. [ 16 ] Subsequently, the Director notes an improvement in the situation until April 2013; the parents being able to remove the children from their arguments and commence communicating in a healthier fashion. [ 17 ] On April 24, 2013, X informs her teacher that her parents have fought all night.

The mother confirms the altercation and that the father is verbally violent and menacing. He pursues her in the house and the mother threatens to call the police. Y and X say they scream to get their parents to stop fighting. The mother indicates her intention to take the children and leave the family domicile. [ 18 ] After the school day, the father presents himself at the school and confronts the mother. The caseworker and the children are present. The father is unresponsive to the caseworker and speaks intensely to the mother in their native tongue.

To the caseworker, he eventually admits to being emotional, fragile and suffering. He threatens to commit suicide, should he not be able to leave with his children. [ 19 ] The mother agrees to not return to the family home with the children, and integrates a shelter. [ 20 ] On April 25 th , the Director applies protective measures entrusting the children to their mother and stipulating the supervision of

the father's contacts. The Court confirms these measures on a provisional basis until June 14 th , whereby the revision of the provisional order permits the mother and the children to reintegrate the family home, upon confirmation of the father's absence. The father leaves the domicile to reside with a friend. [ 21 ] The father's visits evolve positively and he accepts support regarding certain difficulties in the interactions. The father shows rigidity, which impede positive interactions.

He is generally receptive and compliant to the suggestions, which permit the strengthening of the attachments. [ 22 ] An educator works with the family with the dual purpose of teaching parenting skills and supervising the father's visits. The mother is seen as being well organised and makes appreciable efforts to improve the routine and home environment. The father makes improvements but continues to require support as to creating a meaningful paternal bond with his children. [ 23 ] The parties agree to integrate unsupervised access periods.

Since August, a calendar is in force providing three visits a week, for two to three hours each, and sometimes combined with childcare worker. For most of the visits, the parents are together, sometimes with the presence of the educator. [ 24 ] The children relate that they miss their father and wish his return home. They concurrently express to not wanting any more fighting between their parents. [ 25 ] Z indicates to the daycare authorities being the object of physical and verbal violence from his father. He sees his mother also being hurt. [ 26 ] Since August, there are no new incidents of violence.

Recently, the Director observes an effective progression of the parent's relationship and communication. [ 27 ] The communication between the father and the caseworker is difficult and results invariably in unpleasantness. The father responds with anger to comments questioning his efforts or addressing his difficulties, as he considers himself insulted. The father has threatened to move with the children to flee the Director's jurisdiction. [ 28 ] The mother recognizes the inappropriate nature of her husband's relationship with the caseworker.

She tries to intervene but remains mostly passive, because she declares not able to do anything when her husband ''is like this''. After a particularly difficult meeting in December, the mother sends a letter to the caseworker apologizing for her husband's behaviour and offers explanations as to his attitudes (exhibit D-11). [ 29 ] The father testifies before the Court. He states that he struggles with the family turbulence of the last two years. He tries to understand what happened, but now accepts that he has no answer.

He feels that the social services are unduly interfering with his family and that the problems of the past are completely resolved. He wants to put the past behind them and live a normal life with his family. [ 30 ] The father denies any responsibility for the family's difficulties and places himself in the role of a victim. There were no incidents of conjugal violence. He considers not having anger issues and the anger management therapy is to help with his communication skills. [ 31 ] The father affirms coming to the realization of the need to seek services after his wife and children left in April 2013.

He considers having learnt from the anger management therapy and applies the tools. He participates in individual and couples therapy with a A social worker in view of establishing better communication. [ 32 ] The mother attests that she is increasingly more stable and coping positively with the situation. She now works professionally with her husband and they regularly interact in the workplace. Since September, she tells her husband that she will no longer tolerate conflict before the children, which her husband respects to date. For the last few months, there have been no arguments.

Her husband is making efforts to be more present and positive in the family life and she sees tangible results. The children are happy to see their father. [ 33 ] The mother is ready to receive her husband at home in view of verifying the integration of the changes she perceives in the last months. She promotes that the family remain unified, but is now prepared to definitely separate should the relationship resume its dysfunction. She considers the next six months as a trial period.

Both parents confirm that this is the object of discussions between them. [ 34 ] The mother would appreciate a weekly support from the DYP or the CLSC to speak of the family issues. [ 35 ] Parental Capacity Assessments [ 36 ] The parents agree to participate in parental capacity assessments and Dre A, psychologist, oversees this process in September 2013. The Director produces the assessments in the Court file and Dre A testifies before the Court as an expert in psychology. The following resumes the expert's findings and opinions. [ 37 ] The mother presents good parental capacities.

She is mostly able to respond to the needs of her children and to protect them in times of crisis. The relationship is positive and the children are able to express themselves adequately to her. [ 38 ] Dre A determines that the mother is in distress, presenting an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood, as well as a post-traumatic stress disorder. The Court cites the report: Mrs. B is a mother of four children, one of whom she gave up for adoption upon the demand of her husband.

Even though she is harbouring distress regarding her situation, her stronger cultural values lead her to wish for repair the conflictual family situation, thereby minimizing certain aspects of her functioning and of her husband ('

s) functioning that would be inconsistent with her plan. Parental limits are therefore linked to the present emotional fragility of the mother, her ambivalence and still dependency upon her need

to repair the family situation because of the guilt (linked to her depression). The latter will have implications on the capacity of the mother to protect her children from a reoccurrence of being exposed to conjugal violence. (Parental assessment report, exhibit D-6, page 8) [ 39 ] As for the father, the assessment determines that he is also experiencing distress relating to the situation. He doesn't perceive an anger management problem, nor the existence of conjugal violence.

He has limited insight of the underlying problematic, his own dynamic as well as his lack of healthy coping mechanisms. [ 40 ] The father shows a good grasp of the children's educational needs. Notwithstanding, he is at a loss with identifying his children's emotions or being able to understand the impact of the family trauma, such being also true of his empathy towards his wife's emotional state.

The assessment concludes to several parental limits, which impair the father's capacity to fulfill the emotional needs of his children. [ 41 ] The father has not sufficiently internalized the causes of his loss of control and has a tendency to externalize responsibility.

The report states to this effect: "Although the father will comply with the intervention, he appears to integrate little emotionally in order to lead to sustained change, because he has difficulty to acknowledge that he may have a problem'' (Parental assessment report, exhibit D-7, p. 6). [ 42 ] Dre A opines a sombre prognosis once the outside controls recede, and the consequent repetition of the cycle of violence, as there is no real integration of change.

The father's lack of awareness dictates that time be taken to accompany the parties, as the risk factors are still present. [ 43 ] The family requires continued treatment and support, as the situation remains precarious. The implication of cultural elements adds further complexities to the intervention. [ 44 ] In view of the assessment, the expert recommends the following: 1. That the children remain with their mother; 2. The children receive a psychological assessment and subsequent services, if recommended; 3. The mother receive regular psychotherapy; 4.

The mother participate in a support group for women victims of conjugal violence; 5. The involvement of the DYP in the organization and monitoring of the father's access to the children; 6. The father pursue treatment as to anger management and with the ''Services à la famille A à ville A"; 7. The continued services of an educator and the Director of Youth Protection; 8.

A re-evaluation of the family in 6 months in view of the personal evolution of the family, as well as their psychological evolution. [ 45 ] Analysis and decision [ 46 ] For the last two years, services are put in order to support and accompany the family and protect the children from psychological ill treatment.

To this effect, the undersigned has the opportunity to hear the parents on repeated occasions and further, following the evaluation of the evidence, makes the following determinations. [ 47 ] The situation remains in flux, despite the intervention of the DYP, with progress being limited in reason of the complexities of the family dynamic.

The continued conju-gal conflict and dysfunctional dynamic that justify the emergency measures and sepa-ration of the family unit, also mark the beginning of an arduous process of rehabilitation. [ 48 ] The father's testimony reflects that his position and perceptions are little changed since the initial implication of the Director of Youth Protection.

He deflects any ownership as to the reasons justifying protective measures, although it is primarily his actions, which pinion the problematic elements creating the situation of endangerment. [ 49 ] Although the father participates in various therapies and anger management, it is not clear that he integrates these services. The children's interests dictate that these interventions continue to ensure that the father internalize his responsibility, considering that he continues to have limited insight on his actions, and on the consequences of his actions on his family.

At this point, it is uncertain if the father is able, or willing, to effectuate real change. [ 50 ] Consequently, the Court determines that the evaluation of Dre A in his regard remains an accurate reflection of the existence of a serious risk of the father lashing out and presenting violent reactions in situations of perceived loss of control. [ 51 ] To this end, the Court evaluates that the children's security and development continue to be in danger.

The father's propensities for dramatic and violent gestures when overwhelmed are not consistent with the children's best interests and considering the risk of reoccurrence, protective measures are still pertinent. More notably, the Court cites the following incidents: • Running towards a lake with his son in his arms, threatening drowning; • Inciting on the adoption of his son;

• Repeated conjugal violence; • Threatening suicide if the children do not remain in his care; • Alleging his intention to move in order to free his family of the implication of social services; [ 52 ] As to the mother, the Court considers it appropriate to nuance the parental assessment based on the other elements of evidence provided at the hearing. [ 53 ] The mother's situation evolves positively since the assessment of September. She takes assurance in her maternal role and is able to autonomously see as to her children's needs and routines.

Although there remain elements of subservience to her husband's authority, mostly in relation to her wish for a united family, the evidence demonstrates that she is now able and willing to be an effective participant in the parental responsibilities. [ 54 ] The mother also demonstrates the will to set limits with the father in view of ensuring acceptable behaviour, in her regard as well as for the children.

She has shown herself to be protective of her children in situations of crisis, but furthermore, is now able to privilege her children's needs. [ 55 ] Since the summer, there are no further crises in the family environment. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates an improvement in the conjugal relationship, which is more balanced and serene. The parents maintain regular contacts, within the visitation and also in their common professional environment, without issue. The Director observes that overall the situation is evolving positively.

In this sense, the Court perceives a fundamental shift in the conjugal dynamic, which can, in conjunction with other measures, justify a determined progress of the situation. [ 56 ] At the present time, the family members seek to resume their common life.

The legislator recognizes the obligation to promote the children being in their natural environment, if such reflects their best interests. [ 57 ] The tensions having given way to the conjugal violence remain under the surface and a continued control and supervision is pertinent to accompany the family in the measures designed to put an end to the situation of endangerment.

Dre A's recommendations reflect the evidence and, to the extent that the services are put in place and to shoulder and monitor the family, the Court considers that a path can be drawn towards the reunification sought by the family. [ 58 ] The continued precariousness of the family and conjugal relationships dictate that the measures be progressive, in order to ensure that the parents continue to communicate in a healthy manner and offer a serene and safe environment.

The success of these measures are contingent on the parents maintaining their involvements in the therapeutic sessions in place. [ 59 ] The Director suggests a six-month measure, which doesn't reflect the time required to satisfactorily rehabilitate the family situation.

The Court considers that an additional year is an appropriate time frame to integrate the changes necessary, and this, in function of the boundaries resulting from the father's resistance. [ 60 ] In conclusion, the Court entrusts the children to their mother for the entire period of measures, and this, notwithstanding that the parents may resume common life as of June 2014.

The Court considers this determination necessary in the best interests of the children, in view of their need for stability and the fragility of the conjugal relationship. [ 61 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 62 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 63 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children remain in danger; [ 64 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the father's contacts with the children be determined upon mutual agreement between the parties and in default of such an agreement, as follows: • For two months, every second weekend from Friday to Sunday evening, as well as two evenings a week; • For the subsequent two months, every weekend from Friday to Sunday evening, as well as two evenings a week; • At any other times, following agreement between the parties; [ 66 ] PROHIBITS the mother from permitting any access between the children and their father without previous discussion and consent of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 67 ] PERMITS the father to communicate with the children by phone (or other technological means), on a reasonable basis to be determined by the parties; [ 68 ] PERMITS the father to assist to the children's school and organized extra-curricular activities; [ 69 ] Upon agreement between the parents: [ 70 ] PERMITS the father to reintegrate the family home as of June 14 th 2014; [ 71 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard, or in their children's regard, to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children are in danger;

[ 72 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures, namely: • That they pursue their individual and couple's therapy through ''Services à la famille A à ville A" ; • That the father continue his follow-up with organism A; • That the mother continue her follow-up with organism B; • That the mother participate in individual psychotherapy; [ 73 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator if deemed necessary; [ 74 ] ORDERS that the children receive specific health care and health services, specifically a psychological evaluation and follow- up, if deemed necessary by the mental-health professional (

s) and for the duration prescribed; [ 75 ] TAKES ACT of the parent's agreement to the children receiving psychological services; [ 76 ] ORDERS that the parents continue their personal follow-up with the CSSS and this, for as long as deemed appropriate by the professionals and the DYP; [ 77 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the children and their parents for a period of 12 months; [ 78 ] PERMITS the Director to make surprise visits to the family home; [ 79 ] PERMITS that the Director of Youth Protection meet with the children individually and / or in the absence of their parents and ORDERS the parents to facilitate such meetings; [ 80 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: January 6, 2014