2022 QCCQ 9390, 2022 QCCQ 9390

Protection de la jeunesse — 225349 2022 QCCQ 9390 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division » N os : 460-41-002014-207 460-41-002015-204 DATE : June 2, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Children’s mother -and- B (X) -and- UNDECLARED FATHER (

Y) Children’s fathers ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting for the revision of the Court order rendered on June 18, 2021. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the children X and Y are still in danger for the motive of educational neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the children to their mother, authorized supervised contacts with their father, according to agreement on the modalities established with the Director, authorized, if the evolution allowed, that the supervision of the contacts between the father and the children be lifted, upon agreement between the parties and ordered various other measures including a social follow-up until February 28, 2022. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the children X and Y are still in danger for the same motive. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrust the children to their mother, to authorize, in the child X’s favor, contacts with his father, according to the modalities set by the Director and to authorize, in the child Y’s favor, contacts with Mr.

B, according to the modalities set by the Director, to order various other measures

including a social follow-up until December 15 th , 2022. [ 6 ] At the hearing on June 2, 2022, the mother is present and represented. She claims that the situation of compromission is resolved and wants the case closed. Subsidiarily, she agrees that there be contacts between X and his father, however she asks that there be no contact between Mr. B and Y. [ 7 ] Mr. B, Y’s father (hereinafter called the father) is present but not represented. He also wants the Director to close the file.

Subsidiarily, he is asking to maintain contacts with both children and that there be even more contacts with them. [ 8 ] The children’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence, agrees with the conclusions sought by the Director. Evolution of the situation [ 9 ] Since the last Court order, Y and X, have been living with their mother and were having regular visits with the father. [ 10 ] On October 21 st , 2021 the supervision of these contacts was lifted and the father saw the children every week, on Sundays for four hours. [ 11 ] Regarding Y, the mother has told her that Mr. B was not her father.

At that time, her biological father had shown interest in seeing her. He came to the mother’s home three times. [ 12 ] The mother had not planned to tell the child but Y found out by looking into her phone. [ 13 ] Y told Mr. B that she had seen her “real” father.

She tells that he responded by saying that she had no father which upset the little girl very much. [ 14 ] The father denies having said this but rather having told her that he was her real father. [ 15 ] The Court cannot give much credibility to the father’s version because of the child’s reaction and the fact that she was not reassured by their conversation. [ 16 ] This had a psychological impact on the child as she thinks that the father does not love or wants her anymore.

She now refers to him as “Buddy’s Father”, (“Buddy” being X). [ 17 ] Nonetheless, she continued seeing the father with X until the end of November when the two children verbalized a situation of physical abuse. [ 18 ] Y said that the father and the maternal grandmother had hit her. X also said that he had been hit by his father but did not mention his grandmother. [ 19 ] The father completely denied the allegations of physical abuse.

He also refused any help regarding his educational methods. [ 20 ] The signalements were evaluated as not founded for lack of evidence. [ 21 ] During a period of three weeks in December 2021, the contacts with the father were suspended to evaluate these signalements. [ 22 ] Since January 16 th , 2022, the situation regarding the father’s contacts has deteriorated [ 23 ] Until February 13 th , the children complained that the contacts were boring and that they often did not do much, which the father denied. [ 24 ] On February 18 th , 2022, the father signed a new contact agreement in which he had to confirm his presence every Friday before 4 p.m. and that if he were to miss more contacts, they would be reduced. [ 25 ] The agreement also required that the father expose a small

summary after each contact. [ 26 ] However, the father refused to produce such

summary, stating it was too complicated to do so even over text or e-mail after every contact. [ 27 ] The last two contacts of February and the first of March were cancelled. The first ones, by the father on the same day that they were to occur, and last one by the Director because the father failed to confirm his presence. [ 28 ] This irregularity in the contacts had a negative effect on the children, notably as Y’s bond with the father seems to have been further damaged.

She resists going to the contacts and doubts the father’s love for her. [ 29 ] Furthermore, X exhibits more opposition towards his mother, has experienced dark thoughts, and is upset that he cannot see his father more. [ 30 ] On March 11 th , the Director reduced the frequency of contacts with the father to four hours every two weeks, on Sundays, as per the contacts agreement. [ 31 ] The father then mentioned to the mother that he did not want to see the children until the next Court hearing to be held on June

2 nd , 2022. [ 32 ] He refused to comply with the contacts agreement and demanded that the contacts be on his terms, namely every weekend for a duration of six to eight hours. [ 33 ] In fact, the father does not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, often not returning calls, cancelling meetings and refusing any solution regarding the contacts with the children. [ 34 ] As such, the delegate has been unable to work with the father to establish a new contact calendar or to reignite the bond between the father and Y. [ 35 ] Nonetheless, the contacts resumed on March 11 th , 2022 every other weekend. [ 36 ] However, on April 10 th , 2022, the father cancelled the visit directly with the mother, despite confirming his presence to the delegate two days prior. [ 37 ] The Director then filed an application for provisional measures in order for the contacts with the father to be determined by the Director. [ 38 ] On May 3 rd , 2022, the court granted this application. [ 39 ] Afterwards, there have been multiple incidents where the father and sometimes the mother would ask the delegate to modify the visitation day or the hour on the day of confirmation of contacts. [ 40 ] After multiple cancellations and modifications, the Director finally decided to set a visitation calendar. [ 41 ] Y does not present with a reaction if the visits are cancelled but X has big tantrums and screams at his mother. [ 42 ] The mother came up with a nice trick to avoid the children’s deception.

She tells them to put on their fancy clothes either to go see daddy or to go dancing.

The children get so distracted of the cancelled visit. [ 43 ] The father did not recognize his responsibility in the situation of endangerment and considered he had nothing to work on. [ 44 ] He refuses to collaborate with the youth protection and lacks transparency. [ 45 ] The improvement in the mother’s educational capacity is to be commended. [ 46 ] She is able to apply the counsels she receives as to discipline and structure for the children. [ 47 ] The mother has shown her capacity to answer the needs of the children and is open to receive services. [ 48 ] Y has a good relationship with her mother and is functioning well at school. [ 49 ] X had oppositional behaviors at kindergarten but his situation has improved with the help of the educator. [ 50 ] On the other hand, the relationship between the parents has its ups and downs. [ 51 ] Both parents still need to improve the communication between them. [ 52 ] The father denies the impacts of the conflicts between him and the mother on the children, but the mother is aware and is more careful not to expose the children. [ 53 ] She does not speak negatively of the father in front of the children anymore. analysis on the situation of compromission and the measures [ 54 ] The initial situation of compromission regarding educational neglect is resolved and consolidating on the mother’s part. [ 55 ] The mother’s mobilisation had started even before the last order as it is reflect in this judgement of June 18, 2021: “[32] The Court can observe that the mother has greatly mobilized herself and worked on herself. [33] She is able to better control her impulsivity, can receive comments and recognizes now the situation of compromission. [34] She is now proactive in answer her children’s needs. (…)” [ 56 ] She has maintained and improved such progress. [ 57 ] The Court finds that the mother meets the criteria of the new

section 11.5 of the Youth Protection Act : “11.5 The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in implementing the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger.”

[ 58 ] It is regarding the father that the educational neglect is still present. [ 59 ] He actually never collaborated with the social follow up to improve his educational methods and skills. [ 60 ] Furthermore, his lack of involvement in the social follow up and his irregular presence in the children’s lives has led to a new motive of compromission which is psychological ill-treatment because of the harm it causes to the children. [ 61 ] This being said, the social intervention of the Director has reached a deadlock. [ 62 ] In the last order, the Court had mentioned that the Director had to take into consideration his cultural background. [ 63 ] Following this order the Director suggested to the father a community-based organization and even assigned a male worker to do the social follow up. [ 64 ] The father refused to follow up on the recommendation.

Furthermore, despite a better relationship with the new social worker, the father remains on his position regarding his non-recognition of his difficulties. [ 65 ] The Tribunal finds that the Director has met its obligation to take into account the cultural background of the X and the father. [ 66 ] At this point, the resolution of the situation is to resolve the custody and access rights. [ 67 ] This order will be very short and in order to allow the parents to do so through Superior Court, as there are also financial issues to be discussed. [ 68 ] In the meantime, the contacts need to be regulated so that they are beneficial for the children and in their best interest. [ 69 ] The father must take the means to be assiduous and constant.

He must stop asking to reschedule. [ 70 ] The tribunal is impressed by the means taken by the mother to protect the children and avoid their disappointment when the father misses his visits. [ 71 ] Because of this little benevolent scheme, thanks to the mother, the contacts between X and his father will be ordered to occur once a week, every Sunday, for a duration of six hours. [ 72 ] The father must confirm every time, on the Saturday before 16h30 to the mother. [ 73 ] A word about the relationship between Y and the father. The Court finds it is important to re-establish the relationship between them as Mr.

B has acted as a psychological father for the little girl for all of her life. [ 74 ] A restorative meeting should be organised between the child and the father in which he must reassure Y about their relationship. [ 75 ] After this, the contacts could resume, according to the modalities agreed between the parties. [ 76 ] Having read the reports and heard testimonies, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation partially 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 on the ground of educational neglect by the father and adds the ground of psychological ill-treatment due to the father’s lack of consistency in the two children’s life; REVISE the Court order rendered on June 18, 2021 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; AUTHORIZE in the child X’s favor, contacts with his father once a week, every Sunday, for a period of six hours.

The father will have to confirm to the mother his presence to the contacts the day before, before 4:30 pm, if not confirmed, the weekly contact will be cancelled; AUTHORIZE in the child Y’s favor, contacts with Mr.

B, as agreed upon between the parties, while respecting the child’s rhythm; ORDERS that a restorative meeting be arranged between the parents, the child Y and the father’s follow-up worker, Mr. [social worker 2], within 15 days of this order in which the father will reassure Y of his psychological fatherly bond with her; ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; ORDERS that the parents take an active and honest

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely that they collaborate to the elaboration of the intervention plan and the social follow-up; ORDERS that a person, working for an establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family for a period of three (3) months;

__________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Nicolas Bastien Counsel for the DYP M e Karyn Brown Counsel for the children M e Erica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 2, 2022 Deposited exhibits: D-10 and D-11