2017 QCCQ 20809, 2017 QCCQ 20809

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711170 2017 QCCQ 20809 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005399-178 DATE: November 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2005 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Applicant v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Context [ 1 ] Alleging a situation of psychological ill-treatment stemming from domestic violence in the family environment, the Director of Youth Protection applies for protective measures in regards to the child X.

There is a concurrent request as concerns her younger siblings, Y and Z B. [ 2 ] After confirming the parties consent, the Court proceeds jointly in the situation of the three siblings. [ 3 ] At the hearing on the applications for protection, the Director produces an agreement having intervened between the parties (D- 10) and requests that the Court endorse such. [ 4 ] After consigning their admissions, the child and her mother recognize the situation of endangerment as well as the agreement on the application of protective measures, as detailed in the agreement.

Evidence [ 5 ] X resides with her mother, her step-father Mr. B, and her two younger siblings issued from this union. Her father is not declared on her birth certificate. [ 6 ] The Director of Youth Protection, through their delegate A Services ([A]), intervenes in the situation of the children following an argument between the parents on September 18, 2017 which provokes X and her mother to leave the family home. The children Y and Z remain home. [ 7 ] At school the day after this incident, X is upset and crying. With much hesitation, she reports that her step-father, Mr. B, is abusive and always yelling.

She can leave the house on a regular basis when he is angry and that this has been ongoing for years. She fears for her safety as well as that of her mother. [ 8 ] X also reveals that Mr. B can be verbally abusive towards her and rejecting. [ 9 ] She repeats the same facts to an A worker. She adds that she is afraid to return home should her mother and Mr. B learn what she has said. [ 10 ] When the caseworker presents herself to the family home, both the mother and Mr. B immediately takes a defensive posture.

They repeatedly deny any substantial argument the day before and refuse to allow the worker to enter or meet with the children. They blame X of making the report and discredit the information received, referring to her puberty as bringing on her <moodiness> and defiant behaviours. [ 11 ] The following day, the caseworker again meets the child.

As well as confirming a dysfunctional family environment and providing many details of such, X reports her ongoing emotional distress, which is also causing her to lack focus at school. [ 12 ] She further reports that the preceding night, she goes to sleep at her cousin’s home because her mother was upset and yelling at her for having spoken to A. [ 13 ] Both the mother and Mr. B have a complex personal history and background. Mr.

B reports suffering from a traumatic brain injury which renders him less able to control emotional outbursts. [ 14 ] In the past, they both participate in services to resolve their personal and conjugal issues (dependency, anger management, conjugal therapy, etc). [ 15 ] [A Services] retains a situation of endangerment in reason of psychological ill-treatment. [ 16 ] On September 22, 2017, the Director applies immediate protective measures to place the children in foster care. When advised of the removal, the parents (the mother and Mr.

B) react vehemently, denying all allegations of violence, denigrating social services and violently opposing the caseworker (yelling, physical violence). [ 17 ] After hearing the parties, the Court confirms the placement of the children on a provisional basis.

The parents holding a concerted position discrediting the intervention as well as rejecting any cooperation, the Court further renders various orders seeking that the children maintain contacts while keeping them at bay of the intensity of the conflicts surrounding them. [ 18 ] Since that time, Y and Z visit their parents on a weekly basis, with supervision. These are positive and an affectionate relationship is observed. The children ask to go home. [ 19 ] X sees only her mother on the same schedule, stating her discomfort to seeing her step-father. These visits are also positive.

In October, she states her wish to return home, believing that Mr. B has changed. [ 20 ] The mother and Mr. B mobilize themselves in view of the children’s return. [ 21 ] Initially, their efforts focus on the discredit of [A Services], minimizing X’s version of events and seeking allies to challenge the intervention.

This knee-jerk reaction, which privileges their own needs for justification and retribution instead of the children’s needs, underlines their fragile parental capacities. [ 22 ] Over time, their traditional beliefs and recourse to community services and supports help them to progress in their views. [ 23 ] Although they remain distrustful of [A Services] and deny numerous allegations, the parents are able to recognize their ongoing conflictual relationship and the negative effects on their children.

They invest themselves in community services aiming to support them in making changes as to their dynamic and further maintain a serene environment for their children. [ 24 ] Amid these, the Court retains more significantly that both the mother and Mr. B attend parenting ( A Organism ) and relationship counselling. Mr. B also undertakes the A program which offers < a group intervention program for fathers who have abused or neglected their children, exposed them to abuse of their mothers, or are at risk of doing so> (Exhibit P-3).

Analysis and decision [ 25 ] Situation of endangerment [ 26 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court retains a situation of psychological ill-treatment which endangers the security and the development of the children, retaining particularly the following proven facts: • The mother’s conjugal relationship is chronically unstable. • For many years, the children can be witness to conflicts and domestic violence in the family environment. This conjugal violence is mostly verbal (denigration, yelling) but can escalate to physical violence.

A number of police interventions are necessary in regards to domestic abuse. • In 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, the children are the subject of protective measures in reason of psychological ill-treatment due to exposure to domestic violence. • Notwithstanding services, there is a recurrence and intensification of the problematic issues, demonstrating chronicity. • The children suffer distress resulting from this situation, more intensely as concerns C. • The mother and step-father offer limited recognition and collaboration as to the challenges of their conjugal relationship as well as the impacts on their children. • The mother mistrusts outside interventions and have little recourse to social or community services. • The mother and step-father both have a complex personal history which can impede their capacities to deal in a healthy manner with their challenges, both on a personal and family level.

[ 27 ] Protective measures [ 28 ] The objective of the intervention is to ensure that the child benefit from a healthy, serene and secure family environment. [ 29 ] Although there is no question that the provisional decision for removal from the family environment was an accurate reflection of the intensity and ongoing nature of the dysfunctional dynamic, substantial changes have since occurred. [ 30 ] The evidence demonstrates that a comprehensive structure of aid and services now surrounds the family.

The mother and step- father commit to continuing to have recourse to these. [ 31 ] The Court refers to certain passages of a letter signed by them, underlining their vision and commitments (Exhibit P-5): Along with practicing our Traditional ways we will agree to be monitored by [A SERVICES] and abide by their recommendations made in accordance with what they feel is necessary. (par. 2 infini) D and I have no concrete excuses for our ignorance in years past leading to the present for not realizing that three sets of eyes were watching and listening to the discontent between us as a couple.

Our eyes and ears were shock opened when our oldest child felt she had no recourse but to confide in outside sources. We also believe that our children should be part of our further healing and to be witness to our success as parents, partners and role models. (par. 3) [ 32 ] In November, the parties accept a mediation process with the objective of developing an intervention plan. [A SERVICES], X, other family members and support persons contribute to these discussions.

This results in an agreement which the parties agree be endorsed within the judgment to intervene (Exhibit D-10). [ 33 ] As well as specific measures destined to maintain family harmony, focusing on X’s needs, the mother and her spouse agree to continue to use all supportive services indefinitely and to follow their service plan with [A SERVICES]. [ 34 ] This process is a testament to the social and family values which unite the A community and constitute one of its greatest strengths. [ 35 ] The Court concludes that it is possible to effectuate the rehabilitation of the conjugal and family dynamic, with the accompaniment and structure of such services.

The mother and Mr. B’s commitment to change and recognition of her children’s needs convince the Court that this process can continue while the children remain in their family environment. [ 36 ] Notwithstanding, the past history demonstrates that numerous elements of precariousness remain.

Not only must there be rehabilitation of the parental capacities, the durability of the changes must also be promoted, requiring monitoring of the family environment to verify the parent’s ability to integrate the tools put in place, but to also maintain a healthy family environment for their children and prioritize their needs. [ 37 ] After considering the evidence, the Court endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the child's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 38 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child remain with her mother; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the mother and the child participate actively to the measures that are put forward to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 44 ] TAKES ACT of the agreement having intervene between the parties as of the November 9, 2017 and ORDERS the parties to adhere thereto; [ 45 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother

Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: October 23 and November 9, 2017