2017 QCCQ 20391, 2017 QCCQ 20391

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710808 2017 QCCQ 20391 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000393-158 DATE: December 15, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2005 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the judgment rendered on July 3, 2017, in order to maintain the child in her maternal home without the presence of the father. Her brothers are aimed by the same application. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present but not represented; he wishes to proceed without an attorney.

He admits most of the facts contained in the application but he disagrees with some parts of it and adds comments related to those matters. However, he consents to the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. He also agrees with the recommendations of the DYP except, regarding the length of the measures, he suggests a period of six months to coincide with summer. [ 3 ] The child and the mother are absent but duly represented by their lawyers. Both parties consent with the filling of the reports to value the testimony of their authors.

Even if the mother denies, denies as written or ignores some allegations, through her counsel, she agrees with the suggested measures of the DYP. No further evidence was presented by the mother in relation with the allegations denied by her or denied as written. [ 4 ] After the last court hearing in July 2017, the mother moved to Town A with her children. On October 18, 2017, a worker in that area was assigned to this file in collaboration with the present DYP. Throughout the psychosocial report, we notice that the mother plans to come back to Town B but decided afterwards to stay where she is.

Moreover, she intends to seek for divorce and for the custody of the children. The mother is unstable and did not seem to know, for a period of time, where she was going to reside. The children had to live with that uncertainty. [ 5 ] The mother allowed the father to have contacts with the children despite the court order which provides for supervision. Some doubts still remains about her capacity to protect the children.

Nevertheless, we can admit that at least she took some steps such as moving to, hopefully start a new life elsewhere and far from violence issues that have been going on for the past years. [ 6 ] However, she wants to improve her life. At this time, she has no follow-up concerning her personal situation and even if she does now, no evidence was submitted on this matter.

[ 7 ] Regarding the father, he is unable to do a follow-up since he recently started a new job. Considering this, it will also be difficult for him to have visits with his children. He proposes that when his parents will come down for the summer period, they could bring the children for visitation with him and also have phone contacts. [ 8 ] At first, he started a follow-up with Convergence but missed appointments, namely, because his car broke down. He begins this follow-up thinking he was obliged to do so and not because he really wanted to. Still, the Court order is clear, it is only a recommendation.

Even if he thinks that the meetings are beneficial for him, he does not see the purpose of them. [ 9 ] He mentions once again that the only reason for which his family is not all together, is because of the DYP. He is surprised to learn at the hearing that the mother is filling for divorce. [ 10 ] The father said he did not get involved in his follow-up because he is incapable to do so considering he has a new job. Once again, the last order mentions the same thing. This has been an ongoing situation since 2016.

What the court notices is the father’s constant excuses for his actions, for instance, the reasons for which he is not returning DYP calls, see the children or about seeking therapy. [ 11 ] The father is hard to get hold of or does not return his calls. The father denies this but the fact is, that contacts with him are difficult. The intervener has to go his place to meet him and get information.

Recently, his phone service was cancelled so he is no longer reachable. [ 12 ] The lack of involvement of the father and him not returning calls, the secrets between the parents about the unauthorized contacts occurring between the father and the children seems like a “Deja vu” situation. [ 13 ] In fact, on August 1, 2016, a court order was rendered, in which the same situation prevailed, as hereafter reproduced: [6] Furthermore, during the measures the parents did not follow completely the Court order. Even if they were not allowed to see each other in the presence of the children, they did.

The parents also lacked transparency with DYP in regards to their relationship by hiding that they were back together. [7] The father did not complete his follow-up regarding his personal issues because he was working, but he intends to pursue it. The father seeks for help when needed. He also wishes to attend a couple therapy to address their issues and to learn to communicate more efficiently together. He also requested services of external educator following behavioural problem with one of the children.

The mother attends her follow-up meetings as suggested. [ 14 ] The charges against the father regarding his daughter were dropped. The DYP offered the father to organize contacts with the children but until this court hearing, they did not receive any response or any requests on his part on this matter. In fact, since July 3, 2017, the father never requested any visits. When asked how and when those visits could be put in place for the months to come, it seems laborious.

It looks like those contacts will just be happening during the summer period, since he works and has car problems. [ 15 ] It is obvious that the father does not collaborate with the DYP. He has a poor opinion of the DYP’s services and goes as far as denigrating them openly. The father is focused on his own needs, and everyone is responsible except him. He denies all violence issues or conjugal issues. [ 16 ] The child is twelve years old. She is described as reasonable, inquisitive and friendly. She is doing well in her new school and attends it regularly.

She appreciates her new surroundings but misses her old place. [ 17 ] Even if the psychosocial report [1] indicates that she misses her father and wishes to see him, her position is slightly different at the hearing. Her lawyer specifies that for the time being, she does not wish to have contacts with her father, but when she is ready she wants her mother to be present with her. She does not want any more angriness and disputes like before.

She confirms talking to her father regularly on the phone or through the Xbox. [ 18 ] One thing is for sure, neither of the parent’s respects court orders and this situation has been going on for a while now. They only tell the truth when they are confronted, but this is not the way it should work. The collaboration and the transparency of both parents toward the DYP are essential in order to progress and to resolve the issues that come along. [ 19 ] The contacts had to be determined following agreement between the parties and had to be supervised.

Once again, this conclusion of the order was not respected by the parents. [ 20 ] The parents need to get into action, mobilize themselves and collaborate fully with the services. The father has to take some serious steps to address his issues but in the Court’s view, this idea seems pointless since he does not see the necessity to take such steps. Regarding the mother, she has to stabilize her situation. Furthermore, she has to ensure a steady environment for her children. [ 21 ] The child needs a healthy environment, stable, secure and exempt from violence in order to develop and grow adequately.

Considering the lack of progress of the parents and their poor involvement with services especially the father, the involvement of the DYP is more than necessary. [ 22 ] Concerning the supervision of the contacts, the Court takes note that this will be imposed only during the first contacts between the father and the children, to see how they react, but it will be lifted afterwards. The visits should be supervised by the DYP or a third party if necessary, but the mother should not be involved considering the divorce proceedings to come against the father.

The mother may be present during the visit but will not be the one responsible for the supervision of the said visit. [ 23 ] Regarding the length of the measure, a year seems suitable under the circumstances and the parents have always the opportunity to request a revision of the court order with the appropriate proceedings and with new elements.

[ 24 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, considering the evidence, the admissions and the consents of the parties, the application is well founded. The recommended measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 27 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on July 3, 2017; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother, at the exclusion of her father, until December 31, 2018; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be determined following an agreement between the parties and be supervised as long as deemed necessary by the DPY; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the family received services from an external educator, as long deemed necessary by the professional; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undertake a personal follow-up concerning his violence and impulsivity issues; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until December 31, 2018; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: December 4, 2017