2019 QCCQ 14488, 2019 QCCQ 14488

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911685 2019 QCCQ 14488 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005884-195 DATE: October 21, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born on [...], 2013 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION 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.). [ 1 ] Context [ 2 ] On May 8, 2019, the Court renders a protective order in regards to the child X in relation to a serious risk of neglect.

While putting in place various measures of aid and counsel, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family for the first six months. It is pertinent to note that the mother fails to cooperate in the court process and this, despite being well aware of the proceedings. [ 3 ] In July 2019, the Director presents an application for the revision of this Court decision, alleging the impossibility to execute the judgment as the mother refuses to cooperate and advise of either her whereabouts of those of her son.

It is further alleged that she posts “ hateful” comments regarding the caseworker as well as other justice professionals. [ 4 ] Within its efforts to execute the judgment, the Director seeks the collaboration of police authorities, both in Quebec and eventually in [Province A].

In this vein, the Director asks the Court the permission to divulge confidential information regarding the mother’s other children in order to facilitate the execution of the judgment. [ 5 ] Once again, the mother exchanges communications with the caseworker and is aware of the proceedings. [ 6 ] Despite sustained efforts by the Director, it is impossible to trace the child. The mother’s declared residential address is not her domicile, as repeated visits confirm.

The child is not registered in school, despite being of age to attend such. [ 7 ] The situation becomes lives when, during the hearing process in regards to the Director’s requests, the mother is arrested in regards to pending criminal proceedings. The child is not with her. [ 8 ] She is brought before this Court and asked to cooperate. Such is not the case.

She refuses to be sworn in, preferring to simply state that her word is sufficient. [ 9 ] As to questions asked in regards to her son’s whereabouts, she responds most violent of terms, indicating both that she doesn’t know and that she will never reveal the whereabouts of her son. She concurrently treats the attorneys, personnel and court justice system of a myriad of insults in a long-winded diatribe. [ 10 ] The attorney for the Director of Youth Protection asks that the mother be detained in regards to the situation, citing her

contemptuous actions and refusal to respond as to the whereabouts of her son.

The attorney for the child subscribes to this request. [ 11 ] The mother states refusing representation, even though she names having met with attorneys, some at the Court’s insistence. [ 12 ] The Court endorses the Director’s position and the mother is cited for contempt of Court and further detained for refusing to answer questions as to her son’s whereabouts. [ 13 ] Such commences a series of hearings whereby the Court receives information as to the attempts made to locate the child and has exchanges with the mother as to her collaboration and information regarding her son. [ 14 ] The caseworker meets with her in detention, again with the objective of seeking her cooperation.

This exchange is heard in evidence and demonstrates the vehement and belligerent attitudes of the mother in regards to the justice system and social services. [ 15 ] Analysis and decision [ 16 ] The evidence demonstrates that the mother is actively evading social services and the application of the judgment of protection rendered as concerns her son X.

Such is the reflection of the mother’s history with social services and the Court, both as concerns her son X as has been the case in the situation of her other children. [ 17 ] The child’s interests and the execution of a court order being in jeopardy, the Court was justified to not only require her presence but also to seek answers as to the ongoing situation (article 50 C.P.C., 77 and 85 Youth Protection Act). [ 18 ] The Director, in its mandate to execute the Court order, finds itself unable to do so in reason of this as well as its obligations of confidentiality.

During such time, its caseworker is the object of grievous insults from the mother through social media. [ 19 ] Firstly, the Director seeks an order that the mother remove comments from the social network in regards to a caseworker.

Although such an order is possible, it must be in direct relation to the child and his best interests within the protective measures. [ 20 ] Although the mother’s posts on social media denote insulting and even injurious statements towards persons related to social and judicial services, these do not mention nor relate to the child nor infringe on the obligation of confidentiality. [ 21 ] As such, the Court concludes that it is the caseworker’s rights and reputation which are in peril and not the child’s.

As such, the situation escapes this court’s jurisdiction. [ 22 ] In relation to the obligation of confidentiality, the Court authorizes the exchange of certain information in view of the execution of the judgment, namely with police authorities and social services in other jurisdictions.

Such was also the case within the last judgment in reason of the mother’s continued lack of collaboration. [ 23 ] The child’s best interests and the objectives of the law justify that such exceptional authorizations be given in order to advance the execution of the judgment and therefore see as to his protection. [ 24 ] Remains the issue of contempt of court. Contempt of court is an exceptional measure destined to ensure the respect of court orders and to reprimand any repress any affront to its authority or dignity. [ 25 ] In this case, the mother’s contempt is constituted on many levels.

Not only her belligerent insults and attitudes in the Courtroom, a repeated refusal to be formally sworn in, but also through her clear and insistent refusal and/or evasion to questions put to her during the hearing in regards to her son. [ 26 ] More precisely, the legislator provides the following in regards to testimony (article 288 C.P.C.): A witness who refuses to answer a question without valid cause is guilty of contempt of court, as is a witness who is in possession of relevant evidence and refuses to produce it or make it available to the court. [ 27 ] Sanctions for contempt are: 62.

The only sanctions that may be imposed for contempt of court are: (1) payment of a punitive amount not exceeding $10,000 for contempt committed by a natural person, or $100,000 for contempt committed by a legal person, a partnership or an association or another group not endowed with juridical personality, in which case the judgment is executed in accordance with

Chapter XIII of the Code of Penal Procedure; and (2) performance, by the person or the person's officers, of compensatory community work the nature, terms and duration of which are determined by the court. Imprisonment if the person refuses to comply with the court order or injunction, in addition to the sanction imposed, the court may order imprisonment for the term it specifies. The person so imprisoned must be summoned before the court periodically to explain themselves, and imprisonment may be ordered again until the person complies.

Imprisonment can in no case exceed one year. [ 28 ] The interests of her child being in jeopardy and in further relation to her attitudes, a citation for contempt and her subsequent detention were the only adequate means of responding to the situation. [ 29 ] Throughout the hearings, the mother’s approach eventually changes and she offers some information concerning persons who could be aware of where her child would be. She states that her child is probably with his biological father in [Province A] and that he would never cooperate nor tell her where he is, as he also resists the implication of social services.

[ 30 ] Although the Court retains doubts as to her sincerity, it becomes eventually clear that her prolonged detention brings credence to her affirmations of not knowing her son’s actual whereabouts. The Court releases her. [ 31 ] Declared guilty of contempt of Court and considering the circumstances and the representations, the Court also condemns her to a fine. The remainder of the order remains pertinent and in the child’s best interests.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES the mother guilty of contempt of court; [ 34 ] CONDEMNS the mother to a 250,00$ fine, to be paid within the next year; [ 35 ] RELEASES the mother from custody. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Pascale Boucher Attorney for the Applicant Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Dates of hearing: September 4, 10, 13, 20, October 2, 7 and 21, 2019