2021 QCCQ 1624, 2021 QCCQ 1624

Protection de la jeunesse — 21369 2021 QCCQ 1624 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-033196-171 DATE : February 9, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2006 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ AMENDED JUDGMENT

Section 91 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] On March 1 st , 2018, the Tribunal declared that the adolescent’s security or development was endangered due to a situation of neglect and psychological ill-treatment.

The Tribunal reserved the right of the Director to present evidence on the alleged serious risk of neglect. Following the consent of the parties, a clear visitation

schedule was ordered on a provisional basis. It was also ordered that the mother complete a parental capacity assessment. The hearing on applicable measures was continued on June 13, 2018. [ 2 ] On March 31, 2018, following an argument between the mother and the maternal grandmother, the mother was asked to leave the family residence. The adolescent remained with the maternal grandparents. [ 3 ] On May 15, 2018, this arrangement was confirmed by the Tribunal. At the time, the father had concerns given ongoing difficulties during his visits with the adolescent, but he did not object to this recommendation.

Consequently, the Tribunal entrusted the adolescent to her maternal grandparents on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] On June 13, 2018, the Director recommended that the adolescent remain entrusted to the maternal grandparents’ care on a provisional basis and that support measures be ordered until October 18, 2018. The Director recommended that all contacts between the adolescent and the mother be supervised by either the Youth Protection worker or an educator. The parties agreed for a provisional visitation

schedule between the adolescent and the father. [ 5 ] The Tribunal dismissed the maternal grandparents’ application to be declared as parties to the proceedings. As there was no longer any litigation on this subject, the Tribunal added the notion of “serious risk of neglect” (article 38 b) 2 of the Youth Protection Act ) as a rationale for the situation of compromission. The Tribunal then heard the testimonies of Mrs. [Social worker 1], Youth Protection worker, Dr. Niki Saros, psychologist and the maternal grandmother. The Tribunal maintained the adolescent with her grandparents and decided that contacts between her and her father would take place minimally according to the

schedule deposited under exhibit D-9. As for the contacts between the adolescent and her mother, the Tribunal decided that she would minimally see her mother twice per week: once, for four hours under the supervision of the Director and the other time, for four hours, under the maternal grandparents’ supervision. [ 6 ] On October 18, 2018, the Director again recommended that the Tribunal extend the Court order for a provisional period of three months. The mother and the adolescent agreed with the Director’s recommendations.

The father requested that his daughter be placed either with him or in a neutral foster family setting. The Tribunal had the opportunity to hear the father and the mother. Considering that at the time, recent positive developments in the adolescent’s visitation with her father were observed, the Tribunal decided to maintain the entrustment to the maternal grandparents. As the parents were unable to agree on the choice of school for the adolescent, the Tribunal decided that she would attend the public school recommended by the School Board A: [School A].

[ 7 ] On March 6, 2019, the Tribunal declined jurisdiction to continue the hearing as the Superior Court was seized of the adolescent’s situation. The hearing was postponed sine die. [ 8 ] On [...], 2019, the Superior Court rendered a decision to the effect that the Court of Quebec had jurisdiction to determine the choice of school for the adolescent. It was recognized that this Tribunal had rendered judgment based on the evidence presented and that the principles of natural justice were respected. [ 9 ] On October 30, 2019, the mother deposited an Application under

article 37 al. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure , asking for an authorization for the adolescent to attend [School B]. [ 10 ] On December 5, 2019, as the Director’s attorney was indisposed, the hearing was postponed. Since that time, the Director has modified its original orientation for the adolescent and recommended that she be placed in a neutral setting (i.e. rehabilitation centre). [ 11 ] On February 26, 2020, the Tribunal decided to proceed in a common hearing in the files 525-41-0333196-171 and 525-51-[...]. The Tribunal also decided, considering the protection guaranteed by

section 9 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom , not to permit Mrs. Linda Greenberg’s testimony, as she had been involved in a therapeutic process with the adolescent and her parents. The Tribunal had the opportunity to hear Mrs. [Social worker 2], Director of Student growth and parent collaboration at [School B] and Mrs. [Social worker 3], Youth Protection worker. [ 12 ] On February 27, 2020, Mrs. [Social worker 3] was cross-examined and the Tribunal had the opportunity to hear the adolescent.

Despite the Director’s recommendation to place the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre, the Tribunal maintained, on a provisional basis, her entrustment to the grandparents. [ 13 ] On April 30, 2020, the hearing had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 14 ] On September 9, 2020, the Tribunal heard the testimony of Mrs. [Social worker 4], expert in psychoeducation, and the maternal grandmother.

Following the hearing, the status quo was maintained and the Tribunal ordered that the frequency, modalities and duration of contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director, including supervision if deemed necessary. [ 15 ] On November 9, 2020, the Tribunal dismissed the Director’s application for provisional compulsory foster care of the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre and the mother’s application for provisional measures requesting from the Tribunal permission for the adolescent to receive online schooling. [ 16 ] On January 14, 2021, the Tribunal heard the testimony of Mrs. [Social worker 5], Clinical Activity Specialist at Group Home A, Mrs. [Social worker 3], Youth Protection worker and the mother. [ 17 ] On January 15, 2021, the adolescent, the maternal grandmother and the father testified. [ 18 ] At the end of this particularly long hearing, the Director recommended that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre and that support measures be ordered for a period of nine months. [ 19 ] The father agreed with the Director’s plan. [ 20 ] The mother and the adolescent disagreed with the proposed measures.

They recommended that the adolescent remain entrusted to the maternal grandparents. The mother’s Application, asking for authorization for the adolescent to attend [School B] and to designate Dr. Paul H. Korne as orthodontist for the adolescent (file 525-51-[...]) [ 21 ] On October 10, 2019, the parties agreed for the adolescent to receive orthodontic treatment performed by Dr. Paul H. Korne.

The father also agreed to pay a lump sum of 4 000$ for this treatment. [ 22 ] On January 15, 2021, following the adolescent’s testimony, the mother withdrew her request for her daughter to attend [School B] or to do online schooling. [ 23 ] Consequently, the mother’s Application no longer has a purpose. Questions in litigation [ 24 ] Are the proposed measures in the adolescent’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 25 ] Is it necessary to place the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre? [ 26 ] Is it necessary to suspend contacts between the adolescent, her mother and her maternal grandparents?

Context and Analysis Expert evidence

[ 27 ] The evidence shows that, as early as 2017, observations were made concerning the difficulties within the child/father relationship. On March 9 and 14, 2017, Dr. Jaswant Guzder, psychiatrist at the Jewish General Hospital, met with the mother, the maternal grandparents and the adolescent. Dr. Guzder reported the following [1] : “There is no explanation about (the adolescent’s) 6 month refusal to go to father.

Ambiguous questions about her “not telling us why” and her expressed anger that she has rules at the other home which she considers “mean” (i.e. routines) were given as vague evidence.” (…) “Maternal grandparents and mother have inconsistent parenting approach.

No clear limits; consequences, conflict between 3 parenting figures who are united in their distrust of father and stepmother.” [ 28 ] His conclusions supported a diagnosis of Parent-Child relational disorder and Parental alienation syndrome [2] . [ 29 ] At the time, a referral of the adolescent to the day treatment program of the Jewish General Hospital was considered. The family’s file was eventually closed as the maternal family did not attended scheduled appointments. [ 30 ] In February 2018, Dr.

Niki Saros, psychologist, was given the mandate “ to assess the family dynamics that have resulted in (the adolescent) verbalizing that she does not want to have contact with her father ” [3] . [ 31 ] During her evaluation process, as Dr. Saros asked the adolescent why she did not want to go visit her father, the adolescent answered that “ she doesn’t like (her stepmother) because she treats her like a “baby” and is rude to her ” [4] . [ 32 ] During the evaluation with Dr. Saros, the mother explained that she wanted “ what’s best for (the adolescent); she believes it is (the adolescent’

s) choice whether or not she wants to have contact with her father. ” [5] The father reported that he felt his daughter was being “ poisoned and brainwashed ” [6] by the mother and the maternal grandmother. He explained that in October 2016, his daughter simply called to inform that she did not want to return to his home anymore. [ 33 ] In her report, Dr. Saros concluded stating the following [7] : “The maternal grandparents are a protective factor by providing (the adolescent) with security and nurturance, and help to care for her when (the mother) is ill. They are also a risk factor because they are quite negative in their opinion of (the father), which may reinforce (the adolescent’

s) estrangement from her father. (…) While there may be practical reasons that partially contribute to (the adolescent’

s) preference for the maternal home, these are not the reasons provided by (the adolescent). In addition, these considerations are disproportionate to her adamant refusal to see her father. (…) The results of the assessment suggest that (the adolescent) is caught in a loyalty conflict and she is aligned with her mother at the exclusion of her father. These impressions are consistent with the results of two prior psychiatric assessments, which concluded to diagnoses of Parental-Child relational disorder and parental alienation syndrome.” [ 34 ] In terms of intervention, Dr.

Saros noted that “ there is increasingly less probability for re-unification of the alienated parent and child as time passes .” [8] [ 35 ] Dr. Saros recommended that the family (adolescent, parents, and maternal grandparents) participate in a therapeutic process with a professional who has expertise in parental alienation. She also recommended that the adolescent and the mother participate in individual therapy and that the mother’s parental capacity be assessed. [ 36 ] Dr.

Saros also recommended to proceed in different steps. “ As Warshak (2015) explains, removing children from the favored parent’s custody, and placing them with the rejected parent, should be considered when other options have met with failure. It will be necessary to consider this option within a reasonable time frame (3 months), should reunification efforts fail. ” [9] [ 37 ] Dr. Saros was eventually mandated to assess the mother’s parental capacity. This evaluation put in light certain of mother’s limitations meeting the adolescent’s needs. In her report, Dr.

Saros stated the following [10] : “Though (the mother) clearly has love and affection for (the adolescent), her resentment towards (the father) prevents her from encouraging a father-child relationship. The quality of the bond between (the adolescent) and her father has been compromised by (the mother’

s) contribution to this dynamic and this is a risk factor.” [ 38 ] The Tribunal had the opportunity to hear Dr. Saros’ testimony on June 13, 2018. She was recognized as an expert in psychology. Attorneys had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine her. During her testimony, she described that, at the time, positive movement was observed with regards to the adolescent’s visit with her father.

She recommended that we proceed slowly, adding time to the visit and taking more time to further assess the situation. [ 39 ] Why did the adolescent refuse to have contacts with her father? [ 40 ] During her testimony of March 1 st , 2018, the adolescent tried to explain the reasons for the absence of contacts with her father. She mentioned that she did not feel comfortable with him. She said: “ I guess I need to work on my relationship with my dad ”. She drew a circular diagram with her mother on one side, her father on the other side and she placed herself in the middle.

Alienating behaviours [ 41 ] Despite clear indications from the Tribunal, the Director and several professionals working with the family, the mother and the

grandparents have continued to exhibit alienating behaviours towards the father. [ 42 ] Since October 2016, the access rights fixed by the Superior Court Agreement have not been respected. The mother has not taken steps to pro-actively encourage the adolescent’s contacts with her father. On numerous occasions, the mother mentioned to the Youth Protection worker that she would not force her daughter to see the father. [ 43 ] In the past, on numerous occasions, the mother cancelled visits between the father and the adolescent. Scheduled telephone calls were also not respected [11] .

Several excuses were given over the years [12] . [ 44 ] In 2018, knowing that Dr. Saros, psychologist, had a joint appointment scheduled with the adolescent and the father, the mother purchased tickets for her daughter to attend the “Paddington 2” movie premiere on the same day. When the father went to pick up his daughter at school, she ran away to her mother’s home in order to go to the movie.

Confronted by the psychologist, the mother was unable to understand that she essentially created this conflictual situation. [ 45 ] At times, the grandmother has tried to limit contacts between the adolescent and the father, insisting that her granddaughter should receive tutoring services at the same time as the planned visit [13] .

At other times, throughout the years, the grandparents have encouraged the adolescent to maintain her visits and phone contacts with the father. [ 46 ] In her report dated February 22, 2019, Mrs. [Social worker 8], Youth Protection worker, wrote the following [14] : “One time, the grandmother was observed advising (the adolescent) to cry louder after a court hearing so her father and social worker could hear it.

Another time, the grandmother asked (the adolescent) to ask her father to approve a trip to Florida with her aunt only within two (2) days’ notice, knowing full well he would not approve and potentially positioning father in preventing her from the trip.” [ 47 ] The mother and the maternal grandparents have registered the adolescent to school and to camp without consulting the father [15] . [ 48 ] On September 5, 2018, knowing that the father objected for the adolescent to be registered at [School B], the mother registered her nonetheless. This was done with the grandparents’ support.

The father was never contacted by [School B] before the adolescent’s registry. [ 49 ] In 2019, the father took a day off from work to celebrate Father’s Day with his family. He expected his daughter to be present for this occasion. The grandparents insisted that he should plan differently as they had to celebrate their anniversary on the same day. In the end, the adolescent did not visit her father for Father’s Day. [ 50 ] In 2019, the adolescent attended camp for the full summer.

During the two month period, she came back in town but her mother and grandmother reported that she “ was too busy and had no time to see her father ” [16] . [ 51 ] On numerous occasions [17] , different Youth Protection workers had to remind the mother and the maternal grandmother that is was not appropriate to denigrate or speak badly about the father in the adolescent’s presence. [ 52 ] During the first wave of the pandemic in 2020, the adolescent required a laptop to complete her school work. The mother insisted that the father pay half of the cost for a new laptop.

The grandmother had rejected the option for the school to loan a laptop to the adolescent saying she did not want to assume this responsibility. Considering that the school was offering to loan a laptop to the family and that the adolescent already owned a personal IPad, the father declined to contribute to this purchase. This remained a concern for the mother. In May 2020, she mentioned to the Youth Protection worker that the adolescent would personally present this request to the father. This placed the adolescent, once again, in the middle of her parent’s conflict.

Again, the father was presented as if he did not want to provide for his daughter. [ 53 ] The mother and the grandmother have often blamed the father for failing to provide for the adolescent’s needs (vacation, camp, school, computer, etc.). They have shared this information with the adolescent and even asked/coached the adolescent to transmit some of the requests to the father, placing her in the centre of the conflict. [ 54 ] The grandmother does not recognize that she is undermining the father and that she plays a role in the estrangement.

When confronted with this, the grandmother simply mentions that she is reporting “ the truth ”; “ the facts ” and that her granddaughter already knows about the information. In her January 2021 testimony, the grandmother declared that she still did not believe that she had a

part in the conflictual relationship between the adolescent and the father. [ 55 ] On several occasions, the Youth Protection workers had to remind the grandmother of the role expected of her. On occasions, the mother has shared with the Youth Protection worker that she felt undermined by her own mother. It was then reiterated that the grandmother should not usurp the parents’ authority and responsibility. During her testimony of September 9, 2020, the maternal grandmother denied ever undermining the mother’s role.

She also mentioned that she believed that it was the father who was alienating the adolescent. [ 56 ] Within the Court process, it is the maternal grandmother who mandated Mrs. Ilana Chernack.

The expert assumed, without speaking to either parent, that the grandmother was the adolescent’s legal guardian and that she had the authority to make such a request. [ 57 ] At some point, unsatisfied with the quality of work of the adolescent’s lawyer, the maternal grandmother also took steps for the adolescent to change attorney. [ 58 ] During her testimony of February 27, 2020, the adolescent reported that she still heard her mother and grandmother talk negatively about her father. She mentioned that “ it’s as if I have a shield. (…) I don’t listen. I don’t pay attention.

I block it out. ” The adolescent reported that she had her own opinions about her father and that the views of her mother and grandmother “ won’t reflect (on her) that much ”.

[ 59 ] In her January 2021 testimony, the mother recognized that she had spoken negatively about the father during the last year and that this could have had an impact on her daughter. She also recognized that the maternal grandparents had done the same (once or twice in the last year).

Collaboration with the Director [ 60 ] Over the years, the collaboration between the mother, the maternal grandparents, the father and the Director fluctuated. [ 61 ] Due to a lack of collaboration with the mother and the grandparents, despite the order rendered on September 9, 2020, the Director was unable to oversee the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent and her mother. [ 62 ] During a meeting held on November 4 th , 2020, the mother and the grandmother “ yelled, insulted, threatened and made accusations toward (Mrs. [Social worker 3]), Ms. [Social worker 7] and former workers, all in front of (the adolescent). ” [18] The mother reported that she felt denigrated and insulted by the Youth Protection worker who made the assumption that she was back on medication (Dilaudid).

During her January 2021 testimony, the mother reported the she got into her “ Mama Bear mode ”. She got upset and she needed to protect her daughter. She recognized that she was furious and that she “ had every right to be furious ”. During her testimony, the grandmother confirmed that she was upset with the Youth Protection worker but denied ever raising her voice during the meeting. [ 63 ] Following this incident, the mother and the maternal grandparents refused to meet with the Youth Protection worker at the Director’s office.

From the Court hearing of November 9, 2020 to the Court hearing of January 15, 2021, the Youth Protection worker was consequently unable to access the adolescent. Support services offered to the family [ 64 ] During their argumentation, the mother and the adolescent’s attorneys suggested that since the beginning of the Director’s intervention, the “ aid, counsel and assistance ” had not been provided adequately to the adolescent and her family. The adolescent’s attorney even asked for “ more time ” as she considered that the services offered were “ not a fair shot ”.

This is clearly not the Tribunal’s perception of the family’s situation. [ 65 ] On October 23, 2017, the Youth Protection worker received information that the mother’s referral for individual therapy at the CLSC had been denied as the mother was unable to clarify her motivations and objectives. [ 66 ] In 2017 and 2018, the family participated in individual and family therapeutic process with Mr. Matt Danbrooke, [Center A] psychologist intern. At the time, Mr. Danbrooke was supervised by Mrs.

Marie-Josée Mercier, psychologist specialized in parental alienation. [ 67 ] Following the Court hearing of March 1, 2018, the maternal family met with Mrs. Linda Greenberg, psychologist. The father refused to participate due to the cost of the sessions. He was otherwise willing to receive services in the public sector. At the time, this service ended for financial reasons. [ 68 ] At the June 13, 2018 hearing, it was clarified that the maternal grandparents were ready to pay for the therapy with Mrs. Greenberg. Following a certain period of time, the family’s follow-up with Mrs.

Greenberg and her team was re-established; this time as part of a public service. As reported by [Social worker 9], Youth Protection worker: “ The grandmother again expressed her frustration regarding Dr. Greenberg’s approach and said she felt as though when she paid for sessions, Dr. Greenberg was in “their corner” but appears to have moved away from that position, which she says upsets and confuses her. ” [19] Following a disagreement between the mother, the grandmother and Mrs.

Greenberg, the family file was closed in February 2020. [ 69 ] In April 2018, the family was referred to the CLSC to receive services to address parental alienation. [ 70 ] In March and April 2018, the mother participated in a Parenting Capacity Evaluation with Dr. Niki Saros.

During this evaluation, the mother mentioned being on a waiting list to participate in a detoxification program in relation with her use of Dilaudid. [ 71 ] On June 6, 2018, educator services were put in place in order to support the adolescent and her father during their contacts. [ 72 ] On August 6, 2018, the Youth Protection worker referred the mother to the Agency A regarding her mental health issues.

She was also referred to the [Resource A] for her drug addiction counseling. [ 73 ] In 2019, the mother participated in group counseling at Pavilion A. [ 74 ] The adolescent has received academic support from a tutor at [Center A] Volunteer Services. [ 75 ] In 2020, the mother was registered to attend a Parenting Class from the CLSC. This service had to be cancelled in March due to the pandemic. [ 76 ] In spring 2020, the CLSC confirmed that they could offer the mother a follow-up regarding her anxiety and anger issues. The mother took

part in one phone call session, then decided to stop the service as she did not find it useful. The CLSC also confirmed that parental alienation specialized therapy could not be offered to the adolescent through their program. The Youth Protection worker reminded the mother that such a program existed at [Center A], but the mother declined as she believed “ that the alienation therapy must be done through a private service, unaffiliated with [Center A] or the Jewish General Hospital, however, neither she nor (the father) can

afford this. ” [20] During her January 2021 testimony, the mother specified that the adolescent was put on six different waiting lists to receive private therapy. [ 77 ] The Youth Protection worker offered that the adolescent participate in group therapy. The adolescent declined this offer as she did not feel comfortable in a group setting. [ 78 ] From March to October 14, 2020, the Director tried to have the family engage in services offered by the [Organism A] Program.

The mother eventually declined this service explaining that she was not interested in the program as she did not want to deal with a new worker in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. She also mentioned that it would be “ too overwhelming ” [21] for her daughter. [ 79 ] Contrary to what was presented by the mother’s lawyer during her argumentation, mediation was considered as an option by the Director of Youth Protection.

During her testimony of February 27, 2020, Mrs. [Social worker 3] mentioned that mediation, coaching and the option of co-parenting seminars had to be rejected as the mother, the maternal grandparents and the father presented with such mistrust that they were unwilling to be in the same room. Parents were then asked to communicate with each other through email. [ 80 ] Despite all support services put in place by the Director, the parents or the grandparents, the situation persisted and the adolescent remained exposed to the conflict existing between the mother, the grandparents and the father.

Contacts between the adolescent and the father [ 81 ] Since March 1 st , 2018, the frequency and quality of contacts between the adolescent and the father have greatly fluctuated. Despite clear access calendars, visits were cancelled. [ 82 ] During certain visits with her father, when addressed by him or other members of the family, the adolescent would stay completely silent. At other times, she would respond with “ yes ” or “ no ” answers. At times, she avoided opening her father’s texts. [ 83 ] On occasions, visits were described as positive.

The adolescent would appeared engaged and comfortable. [ 84 ] On March 17, 2020, the father canceled his visits with his daughter due to the pandemic. A calendar of phone calls was put in place as the adolescent declined the option to do Facetime with her father. This calendar was not always respected. On June 29, 2020, the father asked for visits to be reinstated. The adolescent resisted to this possibility because of the pandemic. She also stated that she did not want to have a relationship with her father. [ 85 ] On August 14, 2020, a supervised contact was organized.

The Youth Protection worker observed that this contact appeared to be positive for the adolescent. [ 86 ] During the October 14, 2020 intervention plan, the Youth Protection worker was unable to negotiate a visitation

schedule between the adolescent and her father. [ 87 ] In December 2020, the Youth Protection worker proposed that visits be reinstated between the father and the adolescent. To ensure that health measures be respected, it was proposed that visits take place at the Director’s office.

Despite the September 2020 Court order, the mother informed the Youth Protection worker that she was objecting to any visits between her daughter and the father due to COVID-19 restrictions. [ 88 ] The mother and grandmother described that they had create a COVID-19 “ bubble ” that included the adolescent, the mother, the maternal grandparents, the adolescent’s cousin, the adolescent’s aunt and the adolescent’s maternal great-grandparents. Many of these individuals reside at different addresses.

The mother explained that the father was never included in the adolescent’s “ bubble ” as she was not visiting him often.

The mother mentioned to the court that she was permitted to go to the grandparents’ residence as she lives alone… [ 89 ] As reported by the Youth Protection worker [22] : “(…) although Covid 19 safety is the reason given by the maternal family for having kept (the adolescent) from school and for refusing contacts with (the father), there have been too many inconsistencies in the way the family managed their own safety during the pandemic.” [ 90 ] Despite several attempts, faced with a complete refusal from the mother and the maternal grandparents, the Youth Protection worker was unable to organize visits between the adolescent and the father.

The last visit occurred in September 2020. The father also reported that many scheduled phone contacts were not respected. [ 91 ] The father has not always structured his visits with his daughter. It also happened that he ended his visit before the scheduled time. Through the years, he remained receptive to feedback and implemented the educator’s recommendations. [ 92 ] On occasions, confronted with the situation, the father has felt unable to rekindle his relationship with his daughter. He has not always responded to situations in the best fashion.

Despite the numerous obstacles in his path, he remained present in his daughter’s life and still wishes to re-establish a positive relationship with her. He has continued to fight to preserve positive contacts with the adolescent. Group Home A [ 93 ] At this point, the Director recommends that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre. The Director identified Group

Home A as the centre most equipped to meet the adolescent’s needs. [ 94 ] Group Home A is a rehabilitation centre geared to work with a particular clientele. It was presented to the Tribunal as a therapeutic environment, involving a multidisciplinary team (educators, art therapist, psychiatrist, social workers). A maximum of six residents are accepted in the program at the same time.

They do not present with serious behavioural issues but require a specific mental health support. [ 95 ] The group home corresponds to a safe and neutral environment where the adolescent could express herself to professionals. [ 96 ] Schooling is done within the group home. The program is recognized and corresponds to the regular curriculum offered by the schoolboard B.

As the adolescent is in grade 9 and all other residents are in grade 10, she would receive one on one teaching. [ 97 ] The Group Home also offers several extra-curricular activities: yoga, poetry, short story writing, cooking, gardening, nature walks, etc. The residents can also participate in activities such as a youth empowerment workshop. [ 98 ] The adolescent was already screened and accepted for this Program.

Should the Tribunal decide that she needs to be placed in a rehabilitation centre, the Director agreed to keep a bed available for her until February 14, 2021. [ 99 ] In this specific group home, parents are asked to be involved and are part of the therapeutic process. The adolescent’s needs and her best interest [ 100 ] During her testimony of February 27, 2020, the adolescent mentioned that she considered her mother as “ her best friend ” and that she was there for her. In January 2021, the mother described her daughter as “ an amazing young adult ”. The adolescent turned 14 in June 2020.

Even if she is mature, the adolescent still needs structure and guidance. [ 101 ] The adolescent always mentioned being worried regarding her mother’s medical situation. With COVID-19, she became even more worried of infecting her grandparents. She needs to be preserved from this stress and be able to focus on her own needs. [ 102 ] In the past, the adolescent reported that [School A], the school chosen by her father, was not a good school for her [23] .

In her testimony of February 27, 2020, she reported that sometimes, her grandmother and her mother were talking about her school in the following terms: “ We know it’s not the school for you. We’re trying to work it out (for me to change school) ”. During her September 2020 testimony, the grandmother stated that her granddaughter had wasted two years of her life and that education at [School A] was nil. Consequently, at the time, the adolescent had a negative perception of her school. She did not feel supported and presented as if she had no friends and was not happy in school.

This situation was not supported by the documentation deposited by the father [24] . The adolescent needs to be preserved from such negative influence. [ 103 ] During an Intervention Plan meeting of October 14, 2020, the mother insisted for her daughter to read a letter she had prepared for the father. The adolescent refused but the mother insisted to the point where the adolescent started to cry. The adolescent eventually read this letter, while shaking and crying. In this letter, she wrote the following [25] : “ I’ve been thinking a lot about school and why I am not online.

And why do you always say no to everything. I feel that you don’t take me into consideration and it makes me sad an angry that you do this. (…) I feel like (you’re) not acting like a true father by not making good decisions and was always have to go to court and it makes me very anxious and nervous. (…) Instead of making things worse you should learn how to communicate with my family (…).” [ 104 ] Faced with this situation, the father struggled. He reacted abruptly in front of his daughter. The father mentioned regretting his reaction.

During her January 15, 2021 testimony, the adolescent explained that she had not been coached to write this letter. She was perceiving her father as an outsider and not as part of “ her family ”. The adolescent needs to create her own perceptions of situations without internalizing her mother or grandmother’s views. [ 105 ] On January 15, 2021, the adolescent’s attorney insisted that her client testify in front of her parents and grandparents. The adolescent mentioned that she wanted to get it “ out of her chest ”; “ confessing ”, as it was hard to keep everything inside.

She then stated that she wanted to fix her relationship with her father as she only has one father. She was willing to participate in a therapeutic process (alone or with her father). In terms of her schooling, she thought that she should no longer change school. She had made friends and it would be a hard transition for her to change school again. She mentioned that she preferred to physically go to school then to do online schooling.

She did not want to be placed in a group home as she wanted to maintain relationships with her friends. [ 106 ] Following careful evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal shares the Director’s concerns [26] : “Mental health concerns for (the adolescent) have been building for quite some time and have been exasperated by the stress, fear and social isolation that Covid 19 presents. Without further intervention in a neutral environment, as recommended by the several therapeutic professionals involved during the evolution of this file, these concerns will likely continue to pose steep risks to (the adolescent’

s) mental health, overall wellbeing and successful development. The parental alienation which is at the heart of the DYP concerns for (the adolescent) has been chronic and long-standing and DYP interventions and therapeutic efforts thus far have been unsuccessful at making any lasting improvements or rectifying the issues.” [ 107 ] In order to remove the adolescent from the “ negative narrative ”, it appears necessary to suspend her contacts with the mother and the maternal grandparents. During that time, professionals will intensively work on re-establishing the adolescent relationship with her father.

[ 108 ] The adolescent deserve to re-establish a relationship with her father. For the last three years, despite numerous support services, she has been maintained in the center of an important conflict between her grandparents, her mother and her father. The mother and the grandparents have proven that they are unable to abstain from denigrating the father. A placement in a neutral setting will probably be traumatic for the adolescent and cause short term difficulties for her, but the long term benefits appears to be more important at this point.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 109 ] DECLARES that the adolescent’s security or development is still endangered; [ 110 ] ORDERS that, at the latest on February 12, 2021 , the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; [ 111 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director has chosen Group Home A as the appropriate centre for the adolescent; [ 112 ] Once the adolescent has integrated the rehabilitation centre, SUSPENDS contacts between the adolescent, the mother and the maternal extended family, until such a time that the psychiatrist working at [Group Home A] deems it appropriate to reinstate contacts; [ 113 ] ORDERS , in the event that contacts are reinstated, that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent, the mother and the maternal extended family be determined by the Director, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 114 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent and her father be determined by the Director; [ 115 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent receive individual counselling specializing in parental alienation; [ 116 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive individual therapeutic services to address her mental health and that she follows any recommendations made; [ 117 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo individual counselling for his personal issues; [ 118 ] ORDERS that the parents actively collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 119 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 120 ] THE WHOLE until November 9, 2021; [ 121 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Amended and signed on February 9, 2021 /cd Mtre Christine Waldvogel Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Pamela O’Reilly Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Claudine DuSablon Counsel for the mother Mtre Orna Hilberger Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: March 1 st , June 16, October 18, 2018; February 26 and 27, September 9, 2020; January 14 and 15, 2021