2019 QCCQ 18309, 2019 QCCQ 18309

Protection de la jeunesse — 198958 2019 QCCQ 18309 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] « Youth division »

N° : 455-41-001203-181 DATE : October 31, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A The mother -and- B The father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court order rendered on May 31, 2019. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of X in danger for the motive of physical abuse. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Tribunal entrusted the youth to a foster family, authorized a progressive return of X in his familial environment, authorized in his favour, supervised contacts with his parents, according to the modalities determined by the Director and also authorized the lifting of the supervision if the situation allowed. [ 4 ] The Court also ordered that the parents stop physically correcting X (and his siblings), recommended to the Director to request the services of an external community advisor/counselor to better understand the family dynamics and to improve communications and ordered a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The Director considers that the security and development of X are still endangered for the same motives but, after an anticipated revision, requests that the measures be revised. [ 6 ] Today, the Director recommends that the Court entrust the youth to his parents with a social follow-up until May 31, 2020. [ 7 ] The parents are present and represented.

They agree with the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 8 ] X is present and represented. He is also in agreement with the recommendations. Evolution of the situation [ 9 ] Since the last court order, X has been living in a foster home and had regular contacts with his parents. [ 10 ] During the summer, his contacts were every 2 weekends and every Wednesday night.

[ 11 ] By the end of August 2019, X was getting back from his parents visits apparently insecure, anxious and sad. He was also disrespectful, verbally aggressive and had a general negative attitude towards the foster parents. [ 12 ] It appears that X was growingly feeling responsible for his family’s faith in terms of immigration status.

He felt guilty about this situation and was particularly worried for his younger sister if they were to be deported to Africa. [ 13 ] By August 28, 2019, he was about to change his declaration and consulted with his attorney to be informed of the consequences. [ 14 ] The father went to the foster home and spoke with X for about 15 minutes in his car. [ 15 ] After that, X came back to the foster home particularly distraught and verbalized suicidal thoughts. [ 16 ] The Director invoked immediate protective measures and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 17 ] When the parents came to visit their son at the centre in the days after, the father denied having seen his son at the foster home.

The parents were oppositional and defiant. [ 18 ] On September 3, 2019, the Court reinstated supervised contacts with the parents on a provisional basis and set the hearing for October 31 st , 2019. [ 19 ] At the provisional hearing the father maintained his version of events, contradicting X’s version and even though his meeting with his son was witnessed by the foster parents. [ 20 ] Nonetheless, during the months of September and October, the situation has much improved, despites the fact that, all through the meetings with the social worker, the parents never acknowledged having physically abused X or his siblings. [ 21 ] The spectre of deportation was omnipresent and prevented the parents from recognizing the motive of compromission.

Also, the parents shared their history of hardship that explained how they lived in constant fear which prevents them sometime to be truthful towards authorities. [ 22 ] Generally, the parents collaborated with the Director in every meeting. The parents were receptive to the suggestion of receiving education in terms of the psychological effects of physical and psychological abuse on children and new methods in exercising their parental authority and communication. [ 23 ] They also started to involve themselves in parenting groups to improve their parenting skills namely at La Maison de la famille .

The session will begin in November 2019. [ 24 ] They allowed the Director to share information with their worker from La Maison de la famille . [ 25 ] They also sought help from [the Organism A] and the CLSC. [ 26 ] X will have a worker from [the Organism A] to prevent suicidal ideation and help him cope with adolescent issues. [ 27 ] They also mention reading books about child rearing and child development. [ 28 ] They also involve their children in different cultural and sporting activities. [ 29 ] In the very special circumstances of this family, the Court considers the parents’ involvement in all these courses and activities as a form of recognition for physical abuse. [ 30 ] The Court shares the analysis of the Director as it appears from his revision report: « In this situation, it is disconcerting to be confronted, not only with the complete lack of recognition in front of overwhelming evidence, but also with the apparent insensitivity of the parents when it comes to the legal consequences their son will be subject to if the latter goes on with saying he made false declarations.

However, one could be open to the fact that being able to compose with the idea of their child taking the blame for something he did not do would be the result of weighing the pros and the cons of being in a predicament where so much can be lost. In this regard, one could understand the delicate and complex issues this family is being challenged with. First, the clashing of two major socio-cultural differences, the Nigerian ( Yoruba ) culture versus the North American culture; notably in terms of child-rearing methods.

Second, the parents’ considerable sacrifices to offer a better and safer life for their children being threatened by physical abuse accusations perpetrated on them. It is therefore possible to imagine why the parents will never agree to the slightest recognition. Moreover, let us recall that for the parents, this is not physical abuse, but a normal and accepted way of correcting a child’s misbehaviour. It has been taught and practised from generation to generation where they are from.

Needless to say, the punishing is disproportionally severe compared to the possible action a child could have done, besides not being tolerated in our society. It is undeniable that X has been suffering physical abuses, but he has also suffered from psychological abuse. The extreme pressure he has been holding on his shoulders for the last few months is nevertheless unbearable. In addition, he misses his family and his home. Over and above that, it is seriously starting to affect his emotional state and other spheres of his life, like school.

Keeping X separated from his family is generating more negative impacts on every member of the family, especially for him and his younger siblings. The family immigration status and criminal accusations pose a major threat to the parents. Their concerns are real and justified. As a matter of fact, it is also logical to presume that the situation has resulted in a serious deterrent effect for the parents to even think once of reverting to their traditional methods in order to apply their parental authority.

There are still doubts as to whether or not they would put a total stop to the situation of endangerment because their child-rearing methods have been so intrinsically and culturally programmed in

them as the ultimate way of punishing a child’s misconduct. This uncertainty is; however, alleviated by the fact that all of the projectors are now turned towards them, and that, at the first sign of the slightest wrongdoing toward their children, will have an impact. Tight monitoring, provided along with the placement of a security net within the community, and among teachers, healthcare professionals, and family friends, would help in this sense. This analysis brings us to the conclusion that X should be returned to his family.

By no means is this recommendation a sign of some kind of justification in the family’s situation, nor does it excuse it. Moreover, it is not surrending to our most valuable beliefs and cherished values when it comes to proper child-rearing methods and child protection. It is surrending to an intervention that does not work in these conditions because of the uniqueness and complex situation in which we all find ourselves. We have come to a point where we think it would be more beneficial for the family to outgrow this difficult moment united.

It would also serve the purpose of the parents lowering their guard, as they are also mistrustful of the system.

The parents have implicitly shown that even without any recognition on their part, for the reasons we know, there is still room for an educational plan, in terms of the effects of physical abuse towards children, adequate techniques for parental authority practises, how to manage a crisis of disagreement in a family, how to react when faced with a “no”, etc. » [ 31 ] This being said, the parents will have to catch up pretty fast to their adoptive country’s culture. [ 32 ] Their children will have to be able to live a normal adolescent life where friends are very important. [ 33 ] For example, this summer, X wished he could participate in a summer camp with his friends.

He did not feel he was allowed even to ask such permission because it came in conflict with a visit to his parents. [ 34 ] On the other hand, X must accept that his parents have a say in his frequentation and are right to ask questions about where and who he sees. [ 35 ] Now, the parents received their permanent residency.

The Court hopes this will facilitate their adaptation and recognition for the situation. [ 36 ] The Court also considers that the different services put in place around the family will constitute a protective net around X, as well as his new school to make sure that the physical abuse does not start again. [ 37 ] In that sense, it will be paramount that information circulate between organizations to help the Director to work with the family. [ 38 ] The Court is also reassured by the fact that X is absolutely thrilled to go back home. [ 39 ] The Court believes this family has what it takes to surmount the challenges ahead and ensure that their children no longer face physical punishment.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT : GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on May 31, 2019, in the present file; ENTRUSTS the youth X to his parents; ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measure they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth is in danger; ORDERS to the youth and his parents to take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth X and his family until May 31, 2020; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Pier Trépanier Counsel for the Directeur Of Youth Protection Me Caroline Rosa Counsel for the youth Me Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the parents Date of written judgment : December 17, 2019 Date of hearing : October 31, 2019