2015 QCCQ 9536, 2015 QCCQ 9536

Protection de la jeunesse — 151138 2015 QCCQ 9536 JG2072 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-007731-146 DATE : February 9 th , 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONORABLE MARIO GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- X, born on […], 2002 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection (the Director), acting through a duly authorized Youth Protection worker, petitions the Court with a Motion for Protection according to

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the children Y , born on […], 2004, X, born on […], 2002, and Z , born on […], 2001. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the security and development of the children are compromised for the following reasons: ➢ The children are subjected to psychological ill-treatment from their parents; ➢ The children are subjected to physical abuse from their father and stepmother.

[ 3 ] The Director mainly recommends that Z and Y remain under the care of their father and that X remain under the care of her mother including a social follow-up by the Director for a period of one year for all of the family members. [ 4 ] The parents admit some of the allegations of the motion. They are in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 5 ] The children admit most of the allegations of the motion and both reasons why their security and development ought to be declared compromised.

They are in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that the Director is involved in this family since spring 2014.

At that time, the children were living with their father and his wife, while their mother was residing in [Country A]. [ 7 ] During the proceedings, Z and Y have remained under the care of their father while X was provisionally entrusted to her mother on June 17 th , 2014. [ 8 ] All the children report being subjected to physical abuse from their father and stepmother, such as: ➢ Slaps and kicks from the father and stepmother; ➢ Hair being pulled by the stepmother; ➢ On one occasion, the stepmother punched X on the cheek and caused a bruise; ➢ A paint stick was used by the stepmother to hit the children. [ 9 ] In the present judgment, the Court wishes to address the children and tell them that they are trustworthy and therefore believed by the Court.

Their interrogation by a police officer recorded on video reveals bright young girls who disclosed, spontaneously and without bitterness, reliable information relating to inappropriate methods of education prevailing at home. [ 10 ] The parents entertain a highly conflictual relationship. The father alleges that the mother abandoned the children for 2 years. On her side, the mother alleges that she was kept away from the children by the father.

Numerous aspects of the common life, separation and care of the children since then are extremely contradictory. [ 11 ] The Court is not in position to settle these issues and declare which parent is telling partly or as a whole the truth. However, one thing is for sure, the children are well aware of the position of each parent.

They are living a loyalty conflict, eager to know who is telling the truth. [ 12 ] Furthermore, the stepmother declared to the social worker that the family is better off since X’s placement and that she would prefer that X never reintegrate the father’s home. [ 13 ] X is the most affected child. She has shown signs of distress and low self-esteem.

Since December 2014, she is followed by a social worker from [Center A]. [ 14 ] The Court concludes that the security and development of the children are compromised for the reasons that they are being subjected to psychological ill-treatment from their parents and to physical abuse from their father and stepmother. [ 15 ] As for the measures, it is very important to note that the services of an external educator were offered to the father in order to change his educative methods.

The father was more than cooperative all along the five meetings with the educator and willing to do whatever was needed to ensure the well-being of his children. Since day one of the intervention of the Director, there is no report of physical or verbal abuse, neither from the father, nor from his wife. [ 16 ] Z and Y regularly visit their mother and sister X. These contacts are generally positive. [ 17 ] X has had no contact with her father for a number of months and does not wish any in the near future.

Before resuming contacts, she wants her father to recognize his actions and express sincere apologies to her. The Director wishes to take an active

part in the reconciliation between X an d her father, but considers this goal to be reachable only if X’s conditions, needs, desires and rhythm are respected. [ 18 ] Finally, the Director has taken steps to ensure that the family will benefit from the services of the intercultural clinic to facilitate resolution of cultural issues between family members, all from [origin A], [religion A], but not sharing the same strictness regarding their religion. [ 19 ] The Court considers all the recommendations of the Director to be in the best interest of the children.

The good disposition and intention of the parties favour a positive prognosis. [ 20 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the present motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother;

[ 24 ] AUTHORIZES contacts between the child and her father upon agreement between the parties as to frequency, modalities and degree of supervision required; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be favored; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of the present measures; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health services required, more particularly a follow-up from [Center A]; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present measures; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of one year. ________________________________ Mario Gervais, J.C.Q. M e Isabelle Lyonnais Attorney for DYP M e Nancy Côté Attorney for the Y M e Myriam Couillard Attorney for the child X M e Caroline Quoibion Attorney for the child Z M e Sarah Nathalie Marsolais Attorney for the father