2019 QCCQ 15396, 2019 QCCQ 15396

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911490 2019 QCCQ 15396 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005847-184 DATE: October 21, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2011 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A 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 ] Alleging that the child X has been subjected to gestures of a sexual abuse at the hands of her father, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the application of various protective measures for one year. [ 2 ] The mother subscribes to the Director’s evaluation and orientation, as does the child’s attorney, acting under a legal mandate.

The father initially contests the foundation of the measures sought, finally withdrawing such to submit the appreciation of the evidence to the Court. [ 3 ] Context [ 4 ] When the Director initially evaluates the child’s situation, she resides with her mother while seeing her father every second weekend. [ 5 ] On November 3, 2018, the child’s stepfather has a discussion with her concerning boundaries and her right to intimacy as concerns her body.

He also states having told X that she should feel comfortable to tell him if she needed help. [ 6 ] The next day, the mother, during an internet research as to the non-payment of child support, sees that children cannot be forced to see a parent if they don’t feel safe. She questions her daughter to this effect and X responds to not feeling safe with her father. She initially says that her father has touched her legs when she was sleeping.

Somewhat evasive, she shortly thereafter states that her father has touched her vagina. [ 7 ] Asked if such could have been an accident, X states that she can’t remember. [ 8 ] Within a subsequent medical evaluation, X once again states that her father has touched her vagina, adding that such could have been an accident. She states to the doctor that her father had shown her his private parts. [ 9 ] During this appointment, when the mother and the doctor left the room, she tells her stepfather that her father had “ squeezed it ” and that something had come out and landed on her underwear.

She continues by saying that her father wanted her to do something inappropriate, but that she just wanted to go to bed. [ 10 ] Furthermore, X names peripheral details as to the surrounding circumstances (place, position). She draws a map. She makes hand gestures which correspond to her verbalizations (masturbation).

[ 11 ] In a second meeting, X confirms the same elements pertaining to the abuse. [ 12 ] Both parents collaborate throughout the evaluation process. [ 13 ] When confronted with his daughter’s allegations, the father denies such, adding not having any sexual attraction towards her. [ 14 ] He admits to sleeping in the same bed as his daughter during his visitation.

He further explains to having wiped his daughter’s genitals with a cloth on one occasion in relation to her complaining of a burning sensation. [ 15 ] The father adds believing that his daughter is over-educated as to sexual issues considering that her mother was herself a victim of abuse. He admits that she may have seen brief ads of a pornographic nature while watching downloaded movies at his home. [ 16 ] On November 21, 2018, the child is subjected to a police interview in relation to the allegations of abuse.

During this interview, she verbalizes the following: • Her father touched her leg and her private parts on two occasions, over her underwear; • On the first occasion, they were cuddling together and at her nana’s home; • On the second occasion at her father’s apartment, her father also showed her his penis, squeezed his private parts after which water came out and went on her underwear; [ 17 ] As of November 29, 2018, the Court intervenes on a provisional basis, rendering a series of orders including the supervision of the contacts between X and her father. [ 18 ] As of her verbalizations, X starts having difficulties in various spheres of her life.

She has trouble focusing in school. She mentions having recurrent thoughts surrounding sexual themes. [ 19 ] On a repeated basis, X refers to the events of sexual nature with her father. [ 20 ] The father is expecting a child with a new partner. Upon learning of such, X mentions hoping that her father doesn’t do the same thing to her brother. [ 21 ] X now sees her father on a weekly basis under the supervision of her step-grandmother. She appreciates these visits.

On one occasion she stipulates that the visits are better as her father doesn’t do it around other people. [ 22 ] The mother remains collaborative and protective towards her daughter. She engages services for her daughter in relation to her allegations. [ 23 ] At the father’s attorney’s initiative, the child is met with a psychologist in view of evaluating her psychological development and profile, specifically in relation to the allegations of abuse. Both parents participate in this process.

The resulting report is produced in evidence for the Court’s appreciation. [ 24 ] This evaluation concludes that the child offers a coherent and constant version of facts that cannot be clearly discounted by any external factors. [ 25 ] To the expert, both parents relate that she doesn’t have a propensity for falsehood.

Her father maintains that his daughter has misperceptions of situations and/or is affected by the parental relationship, situations which are not concurrent to her versions of fact nor to the expert’s evaluation. [ 26 ] The expert further underlines a series of possible risk factors as pertains to the father, including a lack of social skills, isolation as well as a tendency to prioritize his personal needs and pleasure.

This is in conjunction with the father’s avowed lack of boundaries in relation to intimacy, which he can also use to innocent himself (sleeps with his daughter, doesn’t lock doors, doesn’t filter the adult content on his computer, etc.), leads the expert to conclude that the allegations of sexual abuse cannot be discounted. [ 27 ] It is following the reception of this report that the father decides to review his position and withdraw his contestation. [ 28 ] Analysis and decision [ 29 ] The Director assumes the onus of convincing the Court of the probability of a situation of endangerment justifying the application of protective measures, the whole in the best interests of the child. [ 30 ] As such, after evaluating the uncontested evidence, the Court concludes that this onus is met in as X offers a coherent and consistent version of facts which permit to conclude that she was the victim of gestures of a sexual nature in her paternal environment. [ 31 ] The incidents described by the child are not only of a sexual nature, she also clearly designates her father as the perpetrator of such.

As well as to her stepfather and mother, she repeats her allegations to various other objective parties afterwards. [ 32 ] Furthermore, X offers peripheral details and gestures which offer further credibility to her version of events. Her subsequent behavioural issues are also concurrent to the veracity of her verbalizations.

The psychological evaluation produced in evidence is also considered by the Court to add to the credibility of the situation of endangerment alleged. [ 33 ] As for the protective measures sought, these are an accurate reflection of the child’s needs as well as a path forward towards the rehabilitation of her relationship with her father.

[ 34 ] At the hearing, the father submits offers to participate in the follow-up and to more specifically undertake a therapy in relation to the sexual abuse. The Court encourages him in this process.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the child in danger for the following reason : • sexual abuse (article 38d)1) Youth Protection Act ); [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child receive certain health care and health services in relation to the sexual abuse for as long as deemed necessary; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the father benefits from a therapeutic follow-up for the sexual abuse; [ 44 ] TAKES ACT that the father agrees to participate in a therapeutic follow-up; [ 45 ] ALLTHESE MEASURES for 1 year; [ 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 Angela Nevard Attorney for the Applicant Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: October 21, 2019 Date of signature: December 11, 2019