2016 QCCQ 5137, 2016 QCCQ 5137

Protection de la jeunesse — 162941 2016 QCCQ 5137 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-027333-137 DATE : February 12, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2003 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend for one year the order rendered on May 21, 2015, entrusting the child to the care of his paternal grandparents with various corrective measures. [ 2 ] In addition, the Director requests that the exercise of certain parental attributes related to travel and medical needs be withdrawn from the mother and conferred upon the grandparents for the duration of the order. [ 3 ] The father admits the allegations and consents to the measures as proposed.

Through his lawyer, the child also agrees with the recommendation. [ 4 ] The mother initially denies all of the allegations pertaining to her lack of cooperation, although her testimony contradicts her position. She concedes that she has had no contact with the child since the previous judgment, claiming that she was prohibited from doing so by the court order. She requests that her son be returned immediately to her custody. The evidence [ 5 ] After proper consideration, the Court concludes that the evidence establishes the following situation: (

i) The mother : [ 6 ] Since the prior judgment, the mother has systematically refused to cooperate with the Director. She has deliberately failed to return phone calls and messages. Consequently, she has not had any contact whatsoever with the child. [ 7 ] Her claims that she never received any such messages or calls have no merit. Rather, her animosity towards the Director explains her lack of cooperation. Moreover, she was in no way prevented from contacting the Director if she had so desired.

She admits when confronted that she will never cooperate with social services so long as they continue to consider that she physically abused her son. She justifies her position by denying the existence of the initial motives of endangerment and submits that the peace bond that she signed in criminal court in exchange for the withdrawal of the charges pertaining to the physical abuse of the child is proof of her innocence. [ 8 ] As far as contact with her son is concerned, it must be noted that the wording of the prior judgment allowed for that possibility with the Director’s supervision.

However, the mother never attempted to avail herself of this opportunity.

[ 9 ] As an explanation for her lack of contact with her son, she alleges that she understood the order to mean that contact was completely prohibited. This claim lacks credibility for a number of reasons. [ 10 ] The language of the order is plain and the mother has demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that she has the capabilities to read and understand the nature of the court order. It should be noted that she was represented by attorney at the time of the prior judgment.

In addition, the evidence establishes that the mother prohibited the grandmother from contacting the Director for the purpose of organizing visits. [ 11 ] From the evidence, the Court concludes that the mother intentionally sacrificed contact with her son in direct reaction to the initial finding of endangerment. Throughout these procedures, she has expressed disdain for the Director, blatantly refusing all requests for meetings.

The worker’s numerous attempts at communication, including during these proceedings, have been futile. [ 12 ] The Director’s involvement, in the mother’s opinion, is neither warranted nor welcome.

Ultimately, she fails to acknowledge the legitimacy of this Court’s intervention as well as its purpose. [ 13 ] Moreover, she insists that all parties, including her son, should recognize that she does not represent a danger to him. [ 14 ] Until then, the mother not only refuses contact with the Director and consequently her son, she prohibits members of her family from requesting contact with the child through proper channels.

This form of emotional extortion is highly prejudicial to the child’s interests. [ 15 ] The maternal grandmother confirmed during her testimony that she was ordered by her daughter not to cooperate with the Director. [ 16 ] In effect, the grandmother described that the child sought her out in secret, expressed missing her and wanting to be with his family. The veracity of this event is not in issue. Nevertheless, despite her grandson’s expressed wishes, the grandmother took no course of action.

She maintained that she would not seek contact without her daughter’s express permission, which was not forthcoming. [ 17 ] This evidence confirms that the mother has placed her own needs before those of her child. Her belief that the child can be returned to her custody immediately, without services and without preparation, calls into question her parental capacity. Her failure to recognize that all of her actions since the last judgment are prejudicial to the child is serious cause for concern. (ii) The father [ 18 ] The father sees his son on a fairly regular basis and has a positive relationship with him.

Although he understands the importance of the role that he plays in X’s life, he has yet to invest in the role of primary caregiver. Despite the possibility of overnight visits, the father had failed to request any until recently. These visits will begin shortly. (iii) The child [ 19 ] Regarding the child’s evolution, he is doing relatively well. The transition to high school was difficult but things have smoothed out gradually. At home, other than occasional difficulties with compliance to rules, his behaviour is not an issue. [ 20 ] Of more concern are the moments of emotional distress exhibited by the child.

The worker witnessed one such incident during which the child was crying intensely and expressing anguish at his perception that his parents don’t love him or care for him. [ 21 ] Psychological services have recently been procured as a result of an order for provisional measures. With reason, the Director is concerned that future authorizations for these or other services will not be forthcoming from the mother given her lack of cooperation as well as her expressed belief that he doesn’t require therapy.

The very fact that mother considers herself to be in a position to express an opinion on the subject despite her lack of any contact with the child over a prolonged period of time is troubling. [ 22 ] The grandparents have expressed their intent to travel with the child for summer vacation. Again, a provisional order was recently required for that purpose and the situation has not changed. [ 23 ] The worker states that in a number of direct conversations with the child, he has consistently maintained that he is not ready to have any contact with his mother.

Moreover, the evidence discloses that he was greatly distressed by the criminal procedures related to the child abuse issues initially retained by this Court. [ 24 ] In this context, there is great concern regarding the mother’s insistence that X retract all statements alleging such abuse. [ 25 ] The evidence establishes that the state of endangerment has not changed since the prior judgment. Therefore, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child continues to be endangered for the reasons alleged by the Director.

THE MEASURES [ 26 ] An extension of the order is required and the recommendation regarding the exercise of parental attributes must be granted. The child requires services and the mother’s position is in direct conflict with her son’s best interest. Her failure to cooperate even minimally with the Director makes such an order a necessity. The same can be said regarding travel. [ 27 ] The Court urges the mother to cooperate with social services, failing which, the relationship with her son will not evolve.

Moreover, the Court solicits the mother’s cooperation in relation to the extended maternal family’s opportunity for contact with the child. It is in X’s interest to benefit from such contact but not at any cost. It is the Director’s duty to provide structure and monitoring to ensure the success of these potential visits. The family must be willing to accept this intervention. [ 28 ] Despite a positive relationship with his son, the father acknowledges that he is not yet ready to assume custody on a full-time

basis. He recognizes that he can do more and expresses his intent to take on added parental responsibilities over the next year. He states that his goal is to eventually have X returned to his care.

The Court encourages him to do so and to commit to his role as a father. [ 29 ] After considering all of the evidence the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest. [ 30 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered for the reasons initially determined; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the foster family of Mr C and Mrs D; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the child and his mother be determined by the DYP taking into account the child’s wishes and with a degree of supervision if required; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to receive psychological counselling; [ 36 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority in regards to travel and medical needs and GRANTS them to the foster father; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the child and his maternal grandmother in accordance with the modalities and frequency determined by the DYP; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On March 1 st , 2016 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Marie-Odile Lamaute Attorney for the child Date of hearing: January 14 and February 12, 2016 KO/lf