2021 QCCQ 14875, 2021 QCCQ 14875

Protection de la jeunesse — 219457 2021 QCCQ 14875 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 450-41-007846-208; 450-41-007847-206 DATE : December 8, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Children mother -and- B Children father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting for the revision of the Court order rendered on February 17, 2021. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared that the security and development of the children Brook and Y were still in danger for the motives of psychological ill-treatment and educational neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the children to their mother, excluding the father, authorized supervised contacts with their father, authorized to lift the supervision according to the evolution of the situation, authorized that the father spend some time at the family house, if the situation allowed, ordered various other measures including a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the children are still in danger for the same motives. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrust the children to their mother, excluding the father, entrust according to the evolution of the situation, the children to their parents, authorize contacts with the father, order various other measures including a social follow-up for another period of six months. [ 6 ] At the hearing on December 8, 2021, the mother is present but not represented by a lawyer.

She wants more contacts between the children and the father. She needs more support from him. [ 7 ] After hearing the evidence, the Director’s lawyer states that they do not object that the father helps the mother as long as the Director is informed beforehand.

[ 8 ] The father is present and represented. He agrees with the filing of the exhibits but not with the recommended measures. He wants more contacts with the children. [ 9 ] The children’s lawyer states that although things must go forward, there needs to be a realistic plan that will allow the father to go back home with a social follow up.

Evolution of the situation [ 10 ] Y (5 years old) and X (3 years old) live with their mother since the last court order. [ 11 ] They attended a full time daycare where they evolve well. [ 12 ] They also develop positively within the average range of children of their age; [ 13 ] Y exhibits some difficulty in his social skills as he struggles with his anger management with his peers. [ 14 ] Since he started primary school, Y shows signs of ADHD.

The mother took step to have him evaluated. [ 15 ] He also shows some anxiety and particularly since the end of May 2021. [ 16 ] Since May 2021, the family had supervised contacts together once a week for six hours. [ 17 ] During these contacts, it is observed that the father give more attention to his daughter which seems to impact Y’s self-esteem. [ 18 ] At some point, Y even refused to go to the weekly contacts with his father. [ 19 ] Since September 2021, the children benefit from unsupervised contacts with their father twice a week.

Although there is room for improvement (father still favoring X over Y), the contacts generally go well. [ 20 ] Y still refers to his mother when he gets hurt instated of going to either of his parents. [ 21 ] The mother participates in a follow-up with [Centre A] for her marital issues with the father. [ 22 ] Both parents have a follow-up with the [Centre B] for their parental capacities; the mother is evolving very well and is very proactive. [ 23 ] She recognizes the reasons for the intervention of the DYP and wants changes in her family life; however, the delegate questions the capacity of the mother to protect her children considering the absence of recognition of the father. [ 24 ] The father still believes that the DYP is present only because of false verbalizations from Y. [ 25 ] The father had a follow-up with [Centre C] since April 2021 which he completed.

He seems to collaborate well with the case worker but maintains his position regarding the intervention of the DYP. [ 26 ] The collaboration of the father with the delegate is very poor and difficult.

He feels that his children are different and that he is justified to treat them differently. [ 27 ] He also mentions not having received any help for improving his parental skills although the [Centre B] reports having spent many weeks helping the family. [ 28 ] In fact, the organism stopped their follow up at the end of August as the mother had attained the objectives and the father showed no real intention of changing his ways. [ 29 ] Both parents are on a waiting list to receive couple’s therapy. [ 30 ] The mother has greatly evolved in her self-affirmation.

She claims she is not ready to have the father come back full time at home as he is not showing enough change. [ 31 ] She is particularly preoccupied with the impact of the father’s favoritism on Y’s self-esteem. [ 32 ] On the other hand the mother states that the father now recognizes that they should not have argued in front of the children. [ 33 ] She states that if they do not appease their quarrel they will separate and co-parent. [ 34 ] She also testifies that the father now recognizes that his relationship with Y was not going very well. [ 35 ] She claims that he needs to listen to her when she gives him advice with the children.

THE MEASURES [ 36 ] Considering the slow evolution of the situation, the Director sustains that a full reintegration of the father at home would be premature and that measures still need to be put in place before this can happen. [ 37 ] The Director agrees that the father take care punctually of the children to help the mother but only if the delegate is informed beforehand.

[ 38 ] The minimization of the facts that led to his leaving the family home is very worrisome. [ 39 ] So we must be very careful before reintegrating the father in the family home. [ 40 ] The mother underlines that it took the Director three months to offer an intervention plan so it is no wonder that there has been little evolution. [ 41 ] There needs to be a clear plan to move forward to the integration as soon as the parents have started couples therapy. [ 42 ] The father says he is willing to attend this therapy but that the DYP should not use this to slow down his return him as they never asked for them to do this before. [ 43 ] He also states that his therapy at [Centre C] helped him tremendously and that he has learned to calm down and not let his emotions get the better of him. [ 44 ] He states that he is applying the advice and tools. [ 45 ] He also states that if the mother says it is over, she is in control and that they will separate. [ 46 ] But for now, he should return home as his daughter wakes up at night asking for her father. [ 47 ] The Tribunal sees that there has been more evolution than claims the Director. [ 48 ] In the last judgment by Judge Lise Gagnon she stated that the mother was minimizing the father’s actions and that she was using magical thoughts in saying that was well now. [ 49 ] The court has seen that the mother is now more assertive and is a great protective factor for her children. [ 50 ] The father is also recognising that he had a problem controlling his anger and using tool to control his emotions. [ 51 ] The situation is not resolved but certainly, it must move forward without delay, as there is a good momentum to implement measures and an opening for couple’s therapy on both parents. [ 52 ] Having read the report and heard the mother’s testimony, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS partially the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are still in danger in regards of a situation of psychological ill- treatment and educational neglect; REVISES the Court order rendered on February 17 th , 2021 in the present file; ENTRUSTS X and Y to their mother, excluding the father; ENTRUST, according to the evolution of the situation, the children to their parents; AUTHORIZES in the favor of the children, contacts with their father, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES if the situation allows-it that the father spend some time at the family home; ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard of the children regard to put an end to the situation in which the security of development of the children is in danger; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely; - That they collaborate to the development and implementation of the intervention plan; ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection of any changes in their personals situations; ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of six (6) months without delay; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Idil Abdi

Counsel for the DYP M e Mélissa Robert Counsel for the children M e Karine Pinette Counsel for the father Court date: December 8, 2021