2014 QCCQ 16238, 2014 QCCQ 16238

Protection de la jeunesse — 144227 2014 QCCQ 16238 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004457-134 DATE: February 14, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...], 2011 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a Court decision rendered on June 2, 2013 concerning X, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] The previous judgment determines that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of psychological ill treatment, stemming primarily from the parent's chronically conflictual relationship, situation which is intensified by their personal issues.

The Court orders the application of protective measures for 6 months, more notably entrusting the child to her mother and structuring the father's visitation in order to shield the child from potential conflict. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the child's interests require an extension of protective measures until August 30, 2014, and this, considering that the parents resume their relationship and that there has been little evolution as to their addressing their individual and joint problems. [ 4 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file.

The parents contest the motion, submitting that a situation of endangerment no longer exists. [ 5 ] Acting in virtue of a legal mandate, the attorney for the child supports the pursuit of protective measures in order to accompany the parents in the resumption of services as to the issues contributing to the situation of endangerment.

She suggests that a period of 4 months is sufficient to meet the needs of the child. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] At the last hearing date, after evaluation of the evidence, the Court determines that the security and the development of X were endangered in reason of a situation of psychological ill treatment, stemming from elements of a conflictual parental dynamic, accentuated by the father's alcohol consumption and anger issues.

The measures are the reflection of the requirement that the child be kept at bay of conflict, as well as the parent's will to address their difficulties and offer a calm environment to their child. [ 8 ] The primary issue at hand is whether the security and/or the development of X remain in danger.

The Court retains the following facts as having been proven to its satisfaction. [ 9 ] The parents resume their common life in September 2013, moreover, at the earliest moment allowable in virtue of the last Court order. [ 10 ] In view of their reconciliation and a prohibition of contacts existing until June 2014 between her other three children and Mr. B, the mother entrusts their custody to their father.

The evidence demonstrates that although there is no acceptance or understanding of this prohibition, both parents respect the Court orders in force. [ 11 ] At the onset of their resumption of common life, one incident of conflict generates police intervention, namely on September 11, 2013. The mother requests a police intervention in order to contain the father, who is belligerent and in an inebriated state. She testifies that her intention was to send a clear message to her partner that she no longer tolerates violence, nor any recurrence of their previous dynamic.

These actions prevent the degeneration of the conflictual situation. [ 12 ] Both parents testify that their relationship is now more positive and that they are able to apply strategies to avoid any degeneration of conflictual issues. [ 13 ] The mother moves forward in her capacity to deal with potentially unhealthy situations. Furthermore, her testimony convinces the Court that she recognizes the necessity to prevent the escalation of conflicts.

She receives individual therapy and, despite a recent suspension of such, recognizes the benefits of such and intends to pursue. [ 14 ] The father, on the other hand, considers having faithfully respected the elements of the last judgment. Such is not the case. He cooperates minimally with the Director and minimizes the issues justifying their involvement. [ 15 ] The last order provokes the father to undertake measures to address the personal issues contributing to the reason of endangerment, namely his alcohol consumption ( [ addiction program A]) and anger management (Via [Center A]).

His determination is short lived, as he fails to follow through on these. Presently, the father attests that he has recourse to AA meetings and recently undertakes to resume his follow-up with Via [Center A]. The Court considers the probability that the father will not further these promises. [ 16 ] The evidence supports that the conjugal relationship is stable and generally harmonious.

Both parents recognize the risk factors leading to a renewed degeneration of their situation. [ 17 ] The father significantly reduces his alcohol consumption. [ 18 ] The child is developing well in her family environment and is secure in her relationship with her parents. [ 19 ] The evidence also demonstrates that there have been no incidents of violence between the parents since the last judgment, and certainly not in X's presence. The parent's resumption of common life, although fraught with numerous stressors, brings no degeneration in their conjugal relationship.

The facts justify the conclusion that the parents recognize the need to maintain a serene environment for their child, and to address the factors contributing to the degeneration of their relationship. [ 20 ] The application of protective measures in virtue of the Youth Protection Act are an exceptional intervention in a family's life, of

which the justification is specific situations of endangerment as defined by the law. [ 21 ] In the present case, the Director justly submits the continued presence of risk factors, notably in relation to the father's inaction as to receiving follow-ups for his alcohol consumption and anger management.

Notwithstanding, the Court considers that the factual evolution of the situation, permits to consider that these risk factors no longer meet the standard required by the law, justifying the application of protective measures. [ 22 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court determines that the Director fails to meet its onus to demonstrate that the child is subject to psychological ill treatment, nor at a serious risk of such. [ 23 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DISMISSES the motion for extension of a Court decision. [ 25 ] THE WHOLE without costs. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 14, 2014