2015 QCCQ 14396, 2015 QCCQ 14396

Protection de la jeunesse — 153379 2015 QCCQ 14396 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 27012-137 Date: July 15, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] JD2620 The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a six year-old child, based on the psychological ill-treatment to which she is exposed. [ 2 ] Initially, the Director also alleged that the child was a victim of physical abuse, however, later conceded that the allegations were unfounded. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the amended motion dated May 2, 2013 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, the parents are separated and share custody of the child, since January 2012, under a Superior Court order; 3.2. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of her parents that could cause her harm and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents have a highly conflictual relationship;

b) the parents speak negatively about each other in the presence of the child;

c) the mother reports that the father is hostile during the exchange of the child;

d) the father expresses that the mother is aggressive in the presence of the child;

e) each parent amasses documentation as evidence of the other parent’s alienating behaviour;

f) the parents withhold information from each other pertaining to the child’s health care needs;

g) the child displays behavioural difficulties and throws tantrums;

h) both parents report verbalizations by the child that indicate feelings of distress and potential loyalty conflict; 3.3. the child is subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the mother and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary

steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) on February 7, 2013 , the child was observed to have bruising on her cheek;

b) on that date, the child verbalized that her mother squeezed her hard on both cheeks and mimicked what happened by squeezing her own cheeks with her hands;

c) on February 14, 2013, the child reiterated, both verbally and with the same gestures, how the bruising on her cheek occurred the week prior;

d) the mother admits that the child sustained the bruising while under her care, but denies the use of inappropriate physical discipline (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and given developments in the family’s situation since the date of the motion, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to her father with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year.

The Director leaves it to the Court’s discretion to determine whether contacts between the child and her mother should occur two out of three weekends, as recommended in the child’s psychological assessment, or whether they should continue to occur three out of every four weekends, as requested by the mother. The Director also suggests that the child’s holidays be shared equally. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Pelletier, admitted the parental conflict but denied any physical ill-treatment of the child.

She expressed her consent to the proposed measures but argued that contacts with her daughter should occur slightly more often than suggested in the child’s psychological assessment, namely three weekends out of four. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Germain, also admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures, agreeing that contacts between the mother and daughter occur two weekends out of three, as recommended in the child’s psychological assessment. [ 7 ] Me Denault, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection and strongly urged the parents to set aside their differences in their daughter’s interest. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-16 as evidence: D-1: Copy the child’s birth certificate; D-2: Agreement between the mother and father for custody, dated January 1, 2012; D-3: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated June 11, 2013; D-4: Parental Capacity Assessment of A, prepared by Dr.

Catherine Cloutier, dated June 7, 2013; D-5: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated August 9, 2013; D-6: Parental Capacity Assessment of B, prepared by Peter Kelly, dated November 8, 2013 (filed under s. 294.1 C.p.c.); D-7: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated November 14, 2013; D-8: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated February 6, 2014; D-9: Complementary Report, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated February 3, 2014; D-10: Rapport de réadaptation, prepared by [Social Worker 4], dated February 5, 2014; D-11: Second Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated April 30, 2014; D-12: Third Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated July 31, 2014; D-13: Fourth Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated November 18, 2014; D-14: Child’s birth certificate issued on May 14, 2014; D-15: Complementary Report, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated March 13, 2015; D-16: Addendum to the Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 5], dated March 24, 2015; D-17: Psychological assessment of the enfant, prepared by Diane Pérusse, psychologist, dated June 27, 2014. [ 9 ] The mother filed a number of documents and letters attesting to the child’s well-being while in her care [1] . [ 10 ] The father also filed a number of documents including copies of correspondance. [ 11 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes a long-standing conflict between the parents and its negative impact on the child. [ 12 ] Moreover, the evidence clearly establishes that the child loves both her parents and values her relationship with each one. She is attached to members of both households, including half-siblings, and wishes that her mother would move closer to her father’s home so that she could divide her time equally between her parents. She misses her mother whom she sees less frequently than her father.

[ 13 ] The child is also intensely hurt by the palpable tension between her parents - she describes feeling like a rag doll being torn apart between the two - and wishes that they would stop fighting. [ 14 ] The child’s psychological assessment [2] provides much insight into the child’s behaviour and the family dynamic contributing to heightened suspicion of both parents regarding the other’s negative influence on the child. [ 15 ] In fact, the child admitted to fabricating stories to feed each parent’s fears regarding the other: Questionnée plus avant sur les ecchymoses qu’elle nous montre, X maintiendra fermement que ses parents ne la frappent pas, ni sa mère, ni son père .

Toutefois, l’enfant dira qu’elle a peur et qu’elle ne peut pas nous dire la vérité. Invitée à dire de quoi elle peut avoir si peur, elle devient muette et nous regarde avec malaise. Confrontée plus avant sur ses verbalisations à diverses personnes à l’effet que sa mère la poussait, la faisant tomber, la pinçait, lui laissait des marques, la petite fille nous dira avoir fabriqué une histoire vu les inquiétudes paternelles pour des ecchymoses qu’elle avait . Elle confirmera avoir menti également à la dame qui l’a rencontrée, et aussi à sa maman en lui disant que son père mentait .

X ressent manifestement un malaise face à ceci, et elle dira avoir peut que ses parents soient très fâchés contre elle dans les circonstances. Elle relate que sa mère a pu parfois la prendre par le bras, mais qu’elle ne lui a pas fait mal. Elle réitère toutefois ne pas apprécier les impatiences maternelles. X devient clairement anxieuse à la perspective de retrouver ses parents qui l’attendent tous les deux dans la salle d’attente, puisque c’est la consigne qu’ils ont reçue, chacun devant être présent à nos bureaux pour limiter l’impact d’une pression de loyauté.

X est néanmoins mal à l’aise avec l’information qu’elle vient de nous divulguer, et sa crainte de se faire disputer ou qu’on ne l’aime plus est manifeste.

Nous lui proposons dans les circonstances de dire elle-même la vérité à ses parents, et de constater leurs réactions réelles plutôt que d’anticiper le pire : la petite fille accepte, à la condition que nous demeurions avec elle [3] (emphasis added). [ 16 ] With the help of the psychologist, the child was able to admit the situation to her parents and to find comfort in their supportive reaction: Une fois dans la salle d’attente, nous informons les parents que leur fille a quelque chose d’important à leur dire, et bravement X va leur révéler qu’elle leur a menti, et elle leur répètera ce qu’elle nous a dit dans la salle d’observation .

Elle va se précipiter dans le (sic) bras de sa mère, puis dans ceux de son père, craignant clairement d’avoir perdu leur affection. Les deux parents vont très bien réagir avec l’enfant, chacun la rassurant sur leur affection et sur celle de tous les autres membres de la famille . Madame A inclura alors Y et Z, ce qui va faire plaisir à la fillette. La mère offrira sa main au père, qui la prendra pour signifier qu’ils feront dorénavant attention à rester parents ensemble pour elle, et la petite mettra aussitôt sa main sur celles de ses parents avec beaucoup d’affection.

Ce simple geste a fait du bien à l’enfant, qui ira par la suite dans les bras de l’un et de l’autre rechercher la réassurance de leur affection.

Nous recommanderons alors au père de prendre le temps de téléphoner à X le soir même pour la rassurer à nouveau de son affection, l’enfant demeurant néanmoins un peu troublée [4] (emphasis added). [ 17 ] The psychologist also concludes that the child loves her parents equally: Elle montre une affection claire et importante pour ses deux parents, auxquels elle est attachée, sans signe de préférence. [5] and lied to both in response to the pressure she felt: Par ailleurs, X a été témoin du conflit parental depuis une période appréciable déjà ; elle a été et demeure troublée par celui-ci, et récemment par l’histoire des ecchymoses et par les conduites des deux parents concernant cette question ; dans ce contexte, suite aux pressions que ces conduites lui faisaient ressentir, elle a donné à chacun des parents ce qu’elle a senti que celui-ci voulait, mentant alors aux deux, et en éprouvant de l’anxiété et de la culpabilité [6] (emphasis added). [ 18 ] In fact, despite each parent’s deep suspicions about the other, the child does not appear to have felt abused or neglected in either’s care or to have any difficulty with parental authority and expects to be disciplined and cared for appropriately by both parents. [ 19 ] In

summary, the conclusions of the psychological assessment are consistent with the evidence before the Court and accurately describe the child’s situation as follows: 1- she is developing well; 2- she is equally attached to both parents and wants to see both regularly and frequently; 3- her main problem, “la principale souffrance de la fillette”, stems from her parents’ conflict; 4- their longstanding conflict includes marked tendencies to dramatize the other parent’s behaviour and to consistently blame one another; 5- the child can complain of her mother’s impatience which is, however, not as excessive as perceived by the father; 6- both parents are capable of caring for the child and have distorted perceptions of the other, overemphasizing the other’s shortcomings; 7- despite their conflict both parents have ultimately recognized the importance of maintaining the other’s presence in the child’s life. [7] [ 20 ] Having analysed the situation, the psychologist makes the following recommendations: 1.

Que la garde soit remise au père, plus patient avec sa fillette et probablement un peu moins conflictuel que la mère ; que X fréquente l’école dans le quartier habité par le père; 2. Que X ait, à partir du début août 2014, les accès élargis suivants à sa mère :

− Pendant l’année scolaire : deux fins de semaine sur trois, du vendredi après l’école au dimanche 19H, plus les journées fériées connexes pendant lesquelles tant la mère que l’enfant sont en congé ; une semaine de relâche sur deux ; la moitié du congé des fêtes; − Pendant l’été : trois semaines de vacances non-consécutives durant l’été (avec échange les dimanches 19H); 3. Advenant que madame s’établisse dans le quartier de l’école fréquentée par X, qu’elle ait des accès d’une semaine sur deux pendant toute l’année; 4.

Que les deux parents s’abstiennent dorénavant de tous propos, attitudes ou réactions conflictuels, qui n’entraînent que de la souffrance et des complications pour la fillette ; que chacun des parents se centre sur ce qui se passe à son domicile, et laisse l’autre gérer ce qui se passe au sien; qu’aucun commentaire ne soit fait concernant l’autre parent ; que monsieur cesse de prendre des photographies des ecchymoses de l’enfant, et le lui dise explicitement; 5.

Que madame cesse d’utiliser l’agressivité, l’impatience, les cris ou la contrainte physique lors des contextes disciplinaires avec X ; qu’elle se procure un guide écrit par un professionnel sur l’exercice de la discipline auprès d’un enfant, guide disponible dans toute librairie, et en applique les conseils; 6. Qu’il soit ordonné aux deux parents de suivre le cours sur la coparentalité au Service d’expertise au Palais de justice de Montréal. [8] [ 21 ] The parents essentially agree with the recommendations.

The fact that the parents live far away from one another, the father lives in City A and the mother lives in City B, makes it impossible for the parents to resume a shared custody arrangement and the parties agree that the child be registered to attend school near her father’s home and remain entrusted to him. [ 22 ] The only discrepancy in the parents’ positions regards the frequency of the child’s contacts with her mother and the difference is minimal. [ 23 ] The father argues that the child should spend two out of three weekends with her mother whereas the mother requests three weekends out of four with her daughter. [ 24 ] Ultimately, the Court concludes that the child should spend three weekends out of four with her mother, rather than two out of three as suggested in the psychological assessment and as requested by the father. [ 25 ] This additional time with the mother reflects the fact that the child is equally attached to both her parents and would ideally benefit from shared custody were it not for the distance separating the parents’ homes. [ 26 ] In addition the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the child was thriving in her mother’s care, as attested to by the child’s daycare workers and members of the community [9] , and confirmed by the Director of Youth Protection social worker following the mother in her district who reported absolutely no cause for concern for the child’s well-being in her mother’s care, and deemed the services of an educator no longer necessary [10] . [ 27 ] Moreover, it must be recalled that following allegations that the mother physically disciplined the child, which proved to be unfounded, the mother’s contacts with the child were subjected to strict conditions which the mother scrupulously observed, as ordered by the Court on April 4, 2014, including constant supervision by a third party. [ 28 ] Thus, the additional time with the mother also serves to normalize and strenghthen the bond between the mother and her daughter following the long months during which their contacts were subjected to unnatural constraints. [ 29 ] For the same reasons, the Court concludes that the child’s holidays should be shared equally. [ 30 ] Most importantly, the parents are strongly encouraged to set aside their resentment and mistrust and focus on gaining skills to better co-parent their daughter.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her father; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the mother and the child be determined by consent amongst the parties and in the absence of consent, that they be determined by the Director of Youth Protection so that the child spends three weekends out of four with her mother, as well as pedagogical days, and that holidays be shared equally; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents follow the non-incompatible recommendations of the psychological assessment dated June 27, 2014 [11] ; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to receive individual therapy (regarding mental health and treatment of symptoms associated to stress);

[ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ openness to participate in mediation services; [ 38 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that they begin, as soon as possible, with the support of the Director of Youth Protection, if possible; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in joint co-parenting services to build more appropriate communication skills; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Louise Denault Attorney for the child Me François Pelletier Attorney for the mother Me Alexandre Germain Attorney for the father Hearing dates: November 21, 2013, February 14, May 15, 2014 and March 30, 2015. TD/vl