2020 QCCQ 13191, 2020 QCCQ 13191

Protection de la jeunesse — 201007 2020 QCCQ 13191 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000508-193 DATE: February 27, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2007 Child -and- A -and- B Parents/Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Alleging that the child suffers from psychological ill-treatment, the director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that her security or development is in danger and to order the application of protective measures. [ 2 ] The mother denies the allegations and submits that there is no ground for an intervention by the DYP. The child shares that opinion. However, if the Court was to conclude otherwise, both mother and child agree with the measures the DYP suggests.

The father is not present at the hearing. [ 3 ] The question in dispute is therefore quite simple. Is the child submitted to psychological ill-treatment by means of denigration and name calling from her mother? [ 4 ] The evidence reveals the following relevant facts. [ 5 ] The child’s situation is reported to the DYP on November 28, 2019. On that day, the child presents herself in school and meets with a social worker. She tells her that her mother is mean, calls her names, and threatens to hit her.

She states that she does not want to go back home. [ 6 ] The social worker indicates that, about a month before, the child came to her for the same reason. Following that first meeting, the mother forbids that worker to talk with her daughter. [ 7 ] On November 28, the child gives the same version to the DYP shortly after her meeting with the social worker in school. Moreover, the child then says that, a while ago, her mother took her by the throat. She is very emotional while relating those events. [ 8 ] Met on the same day, the mother provides a different version.

She denies any form of denigration, name calling or physical abuse on her daughter. All through the assessment process, the mother keeps the same discourse. [ 9 ] Following the child’s disclosure, the DYP decides to apply immediate protective measures in order to entrust her to a foster family. On the next day, the child is rather entrusted to a great-uncle. On December 2, the Court orders that the child be entrusted to her father for a period of 5 working days. Afterwards, the child returns to her mother’s care. [ 10 ] Over time, the child provides different versions of her situation at home.

At first and when she provides a video statement to the

police, she talks about denigration and one event of physical abuse. About one week after her initial disclosure, while she is entrusted to her father, she denies the incident where the mother would have grabbed her by the throat. She goes back living with her mother shortly after. [ 11 ] After the holidays, the child changes her version again, saying the verbal abuse did not occur either, or at least not as bad as she pretended earlier.

Then at the hearing, through her lawyer’s voice, she denies all allegations of either physical or verbal abuse. [ 12 ] The challenge is to figure out where the truth lies in the child’s evolutionary version of facts. [ 13 ] The Court did not hear the father, since he was not present at the hearing. [ 14 ] However, the father would have told the DYP that he knew that the relationship between the child and the mother is sometimes difficult. He nevertheless questions the veracity of his daughter’s allegations, from the outset. [ 15 ] The mother tries to provide an explanation for the child’s first version of events.

She says that the evening before the disclosure, she finds out her daughter has a cell phone in her possession, which belongs to her 14 year-old boyfriend. She then looks at that device and sees, on social media, inappropriate photos and messages. She requests that the child break-up with her boyfriend the next day. [ 16 ] The mother is surprised and shocked the following day when she receives a call from the DYP. As mentioned earlier, she denies any abuse towards her daughter.

She pleads that the DYP should not be present in their life. [ 17 ] The social worker’s opinion is that the child’s first statement is sincere and trustworthy. The child is upset, she cries and appears afraid of the consequences. [ 18 ] She thinks the child may have changed her mind because of pressure from her parents. When the child denies the use of force but maintains she suffers from verbal abuse, she seems afraid. Furthermore, when she changes her version, the child is evasive and reluctant to talk any longer. [ 19 ] The social worker adds it is hard to believe it was all lies.

To her, the situation remains unclear and the child needs help, being true or not. Services should be provided to work on the relationship between the child and her mother. [ 20 ] The DYP bears the burden to convince the Court that its allegations are true, on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the evidence must convince the Court that the allegations are trustworthy, most likely than not. [ 21 ] In the case at bar, the DYP does not meet its burden. The fact that the mother would submit the child to psychological ill- treatment is a possibility.

However, there is no preponderant evidence to that effect. [ 22 ] We know for a fact that the child lies at one time or another. However, it would be very hazardous to speculate on her motivation to lie. Maybe she did lie in order for the DYP to close the file, because of pressure from her parents and extended family, but it is not most likely than not the case. She could as well have made up the story from the outset, following the argument with her mother the previous evening. [ 23 ] At the end of the day, suspicions remain.

However, suspicions are not enough to impose the application of protective measures to a family. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence does not convince the Court that the security or development of the child is in danger because she would be submitted to psychological ill-treatment from her mother. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DISMISSES the amended application for protection; __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant

Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: February 24, 2020