2020 QCCQ 10247, 2020 QCCQ 10247

Protection de la jeunesse — 201414 2020 QCCQ 10247 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34519-181 Date: February 14, 2020 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother The parent 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 of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a six year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect, serious risk of sexual abuse, inadequate supervision and psychological ill-treatment to which he is exposed. [ 2 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 3 ] In light of the allegations, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child remain entrusted to his mother but that contacts be prohibited with his maternal grandmother’s husband, and with his half-brother’s father, and that the family benefit from other corrective measures for a period of one year. [ 4 ] The mother, assisted by Me Ameur, admitted the grounds of endangerment, except the alleged serious risk of sexual abuse, and agreed to all the proposed measures. [ 5 ] The child’s father is not declared on his birth certificate. [ 6 ] Me Sabik, who represented the child, argued that the evidence adduced by the Director effectively establishes all the alleged grounds of endangerment and argued that the child’s exposure to sexual activity constitutes sexual abuse rather than posing a serious risk of sexual abuse.

She otherwise approved of the measures proposed by the Director. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-14 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Agreement on voluntary measures, dated September 12, 2018; D-3: Court Report, by Dorli Fischer, dated November 19, 2018; D-4: Police Report, événement no. 42-180705-014, dated July 15, 2018 (filed under

section 292 C.C.P.); D-5: Sky’s police interview by Detetive Manon Champagne, dated July 11, 2018;

D-6: Mother’s police interview by Detetive Manon Champagne, dated July 11, 2018; D-7: Mother’s parental capacity evaluation, by Dr. Niki Saros, dated November 27, 2018 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-8: Sky Mayrand’s psychological assessment, by Dre. Catherine Cloutier, dated January 30, 2019 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-9: Mother’s psychiatric assessment, by Dr. Daniel Frank, dated February 11, 2019 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-10: Addendum, prepared by Dorli Fischer, dated March 4, 2019; D-11: Evaluation of signalement, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 14, 2019; D-12: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 29, 2019; D-13: Addendum II, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated December 4, 2019; D-14: Police Report MTLEV-1900647033. [ 8 ] In

summary, the child’s situation was reported when his older half-sister disclosed that she was sexually abused by their maternal grandmother’s husband. [ 9 ] The mother and her three children were sharing an apartment with the maternal grandmother and her husband for many years and the reported incidents of sexual abuse are admitted although the mother claims that she took the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 10 ] However, the evidence establishes that the mother continued to reside with her children and the perpetrator for years after her daughter’s initial disclosure, despite the mother’s own admitted suspicions, due in part to her emotional and financial dependence on her own mother. [ 11 ] In addition, although there is no indication that either the child or his brother were actually touched or targeted by their step- grandfather, the boy’s extreme vulnerability because of his young age and developmental delays increases his risk, especially when considering the mother’s attitude towards the issue.

As indicated in the Court Report: When asked if she was worried for the boys’ safety in the home, Ms. A stated that, in the Chinese culture, if a boy swallows another man’s semen, it makes him stronger. [1] [ 12 ] The tribunal concludes that the child faces a serious risk of sexual abuse by his maternal grandmother’s husband and that any contact with him must be prohibited. [ 13 ] In addition, more recently the child has been exposed to sexual activity between his mother and the father of her youngest son, Mr.

C, in a way that constitutes sexual abuse. [ 14 ] Although the mother and her ex-partner present differing accounts about whether their sexual relations were consensual or not, both admit to having had sexual relations in the presence of the child and his half-brother. [ 15 ] The events were reported as follows: On June 21, 2019, after playing at the park, Mr. C went to his apartment with Y and X. Ms. A followed them. Once Ms. A entered the apartment, Mr. C locked the door and brought her to the bedroom where the children were playing. Mr.

C pushed her onto the bed and had sex with her in front of the children despite the fact that Ms. A asked him to stop. X asked Mr. C “what are you doing to my mom” and Mr. C answered: “I put another baby in your mother”. The following day, Mr. C met with Ms. A and the two young children, played in the park with them and accompanied them to Walmart and paid for the children’s swimming gear. On June 23, 2019, Mr. C met Ms. A while she was waiting for her daughter. Mr. C entered into Ms. A’s car and they went to Jarry Park to swim. Ms. A left the two younger children with Mr. C while she was parking the car. Mr.

C and the children did not wait for her where she instructed them. Upon Ms. A’s arrival, X was crying. On July 8, 2019, Ms. A reported the event on June 21, 2019 to the police. She described her relationship with Mr. C as punctuated with control and abuse. [2] [ 16 ] With the exception of the extent to which the acts were consensual, the incidents are essentially admitted as described, except that Mr.

C claims that they were under a blanket whereas the mother says that they were not. [ 17 ] In any event, the child was sufficiently aware of the adults to question their behavior which was undoubtedly totally inappropriate and demonstrates a serious lack of judgement, in addition to a blatant disrespect for necessary boundaries between adults and children. [ 18 ] According to Mr. C, this was not an isolated incident: […] there were multiple times where Ms.

A had sex with him in his bedroom while the children were watching TV in the same bedroom. [3] [ 19 ] Despite the mother’s claims that she was forced to have sexual relations with Mr. C in her children’s presence, she repeatedly put the children in contact with him, further exposing them to inappropriate behavior. [ 20 ] Both the mother and Mr. C minimize the impact of their behavior on the children:

When she was confronted with the incident in the signalement, she minimized the inappropriateness of repeatedly having intercourse in the presence of her children. Mr. C appears to be emotional and fragile, during the interview, he cried 4-5 times.

He seemed to have no idea as to the inappropriateness of repeatedly having intercourse in the presence of X and Y. [4] [ 21 ] The child’s repeated exposure to adult sexual activity clearly poses a threat to his healthy sexual and emotional development and constitutes sexual abuse even though no direct contact is involved and the child’s presence is incidental. [ 22 ] It is therefore recommended that any contact between the child and Mr. C be prohibited and the parties are all in agreement with the recommendation. [ 23 ] The evidence establishes that the mother and Mr.

C have a very conflictual relationship and the child must not be exposed to their conflicts or sexual activities. [ 24 ] It should also be noted that the mother’s Parental Capacity Assessment as well as her psychiatric assessment consistently point to limitations that impede her judgment: The personal history suggests significant deficits in adaptive functioning in areas such as, independent living, self-sufficiency, interpersonal relationships, social judgement, planning ability, and decision-making. [5] […] Insight and judgment were clearly deficient. […] In my opinion, Ms.

A suffers from a personality disorder with trait disturbances in the narcissistic, paranoid and anti-social domains. [6] [ 25 ] Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities all the alleged grounds of endangerment as well as sexual abuse and that the measures recommended and agreed upon by the parties are in the child’s interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) (iii), 38 (b) (2), 38 (c), 38 (d) (1) and 38 (d) (2) 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: [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his maternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary, taking into account the child’s wishes; [ 30 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and his step-grandfather, Mr.

D, and as well as his half-brother’s father, Mr. C; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the family continue to benefit from the services of an educator for as long as necessary; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child receive all services deemed necessary by his treating professionals regarding his developmental delays as soon as possible; [ 33 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother seek support services for her personal difficulties from the community (i.e.

CLSC); [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. Signed on February 14, 2020

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the child Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: March 26, September 4 and 5 and December 17, 2019 TD/vl