r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 6474

Protection de la jeunesse — 162615 2016 QCCQ 6474 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-003856-104 DATE: March 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2006 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents a motion for revision and extension of a Court decision concerning X born on [...], 2006. [ 2 ] The judgment in force entrusts the child in foster care, while providing various other protective measures for 6 months, including the contacts with her parents, ordering that these occur with the supervision of a third party as to her mother and be forbidden with her father. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges the expiration of the maximum delays of placement as well as an evolution of the contacts with the mother, justify that the Court revise and extend the application of protective measures until the child’s majority. [ 4 ] The parties agree that the Court proceed on a joint hearing as to pending motions concerning the child’s siblings, Y and Z. [ 5 ] The parties consign their admissions.

The mother agrees to the orientation sought by the Director of Youth Protection, as does the child. [ 6 ] Although the father initially signals his intention to seek the reestablishment of contacts with his children, at the hearing he offers no contestation and testifies before the Court as to the evolution of his personal situation.

His attorney pleads that the father’s progress permits the Court to consider a determined term for the prohibition of contacts, therefore allowing their eventual resumption on a supervised basis. [ 7 ] Context [ 8 ] Protective measures are in place in reason of parental neglect in the maternal environment as well as a sexual abuse by the father in the case of Y and X and a risk of sexual abuse as to Z. [ 9 ] Since the last Court order, X continues to evolve positively in her foster milieu, which she shares with her sister Z.

She is integrated in this environment and projects staying until her majority. [ 10 ] In January 2016, the foster parents announce their separation. The foster mother, Ms C, maintains her implication as to both sisters. [ 11 ] The mother continues to reside with the maternal grandmother. She is assiduous as to the mental health services in place and

collaborates well with the intervention. [ 12 ] The child continues supervised contacts with her mother and these progress gradually over time. Overall, the contacts between X and her mother are beneficial. The mother is receptive to the counsel offered as to her contacts and is more available to interact with the children in a positive way. [ 13 ] As of September 2015, the contacts occur at the mother’s home, supervised by a social worker. There is a further monthly supervised contact between the mother and the three siblings.

The transition of the contacts to the mother’s environment allows the visits to be more normalizing and natural. [ 14 ] The objective is to continue to work with the mother towards the eventual lifting of the supervision and weekend visitation. The mother confirms her agreement as to this orientation. [ 15 ] The children have not seen their father since the initial intervention of the Director of Youth Protection in 2011. Despite the father’s incarceration, successive judgments permit supervised contacts.

The father failing to seek any form of contacts or cooperate with the intervention result in the Court forbidding contacts by a judgment dating April 2, 2013. [ 16 ] After purging a lengthy prison term for various criminal acts of a sexual nature in regards to minors (gross indecency, sexual interference, sexual contacts, juvenile pornography), the father is released into a half-way house in April 2015.

He anticipates being bound to remain in his present surroundings until at least the next year. [ 17 ] The father recognizes a complex personal history punctuated by substance abuse, pedophilia and delinquency, as well as a series of child sexual assaults. [ 18 ] Under the conditions of his release, the father is prohibited from having any contact with a minor, unless accompanied by a responsible adult knowing his criminal history and previously approved by his parole supervisor.

He is also prohibited from contacts with his victims, which include his children Y and X as well as his brother. [ 19 ] This situation is to be reviewed by the parole board in July 2017. [ 20 ] The father is working on a full-time basis. He maintains his sobriety and continues to receive support by attending AA meetings. [ 21 ] The father cooperates well with social services and maintains contact with the case worker as to the evolution of his children.

He has given full disclosure as to his follow-ups and criminal file. [ 22 ] Although the father accepts that the Court will pursue the prohibition of contacts in place, he stipulates that his progress and will to change justify that he may eventually be able to reunite with his children. [ 23 ] The Director presents reports in regards to services and evaluations of the father during his incarceration in regards to his sexual deviancy. [ 24 ] The father receives a diagnosis of nonexclusive heterosexual pedophilia with a secondary interest in boys and sexual violence.

Although he participates in numerous sexual delinquency programs, his complex personal history contribute to an integrated problematic which is unresolved and still presents significant risk factors. [ 25 ] One report states: ‘ ’Despite participating in numerous intervention regarding his sexual deviancy and substance abuse, no long-lasting progress can be noted as of now. This is particularly true in light of his participation in sexual deviancy programs, considering he often resorts to external causes such as sickness and social causes to explain his acting out.

His introspection is still at an early stage according to the latest reports, as is his accountability.’’ (Rapport sur le profil criminel, exhibit D-14, page 20). [ 26 ] In the decision of the Parole Board of Canada regarding the father, dated November 27, 2014, the following is detailed (exhibit D-12, page 5): To come to this conclusion, the Board took into consideration the very serious nature of your sexual offences and the serious harm you have caused to many victims. In addition, even though you have completed a sex offender program of high intensity, you continue to admit having deviant sexual fantasies.

You also admit to having committed the acts, but you tend to project the blame on external factors and you minimize the seriousness of your behaviour. In that sense you reject the responsibility of your acts. Your accountability requires major improvement.

Finally, the Board noted that your risk of recidivism is estimated to be ranging from moderate to high and your needs for intervention are still at a high level, both for your static and dynamic factors. [ 27 ] The father agrees with the placement of his children until majority. [ 28 ] Recognizing having abused many children, the father testifies that has never before felt guilty or wanted to change. His last period of incarceration brought him to reflect on the sources of his delinquency and to sincerely participate in services of rehabilitation.

He now accepts his guilt and doesn’t want his children to perpetuate his abuse. He stipulates that his efforts towards rehabilitation are grounded in his wish to be a part of his children’s lives and help them heal. [ 29 ] The father continues to participate in programs to receive help for his problematic, the next step being an individual psychological therapy. He agrees to continue to keep the case worker apprised of his situation and cooperate fully. [ 30 ] The mother testifies as to her vision of the father’s position.

Although she forgives him for what he has done and wishes him to heal, she does not trust him with her children or any other children. She considers that his progress is insufficient to justify a resumption

of contacts, either now or in the future. She accepts that her children might eventually need to see their father in a therapeutic setting. [ 31 ] The children maintain little memories of their father. Z clearly indicates not wanting to see her father. When questioned about their father, both X and Y express a curiosity, but make no requests for contacts. [ 32 ] Analysis and decision [ 33 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the conclusions sought by the Director of Youth Protection correspond to X’s best interests. [ 34 ] Removed from her home environment since 2011, the Court concludes that the delays of placement provided under

article 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act are expired, that the security or the development of the child are still in danger and that a return with the parents is not foreseeable. These facts are uncontested by the parties. [ 35 ] The Court must therefore render an order which aims at ensuring the continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age, on a permanent basis. [ 36 ] X is now anchored in her foster family and continuing to flourish under their care.

This environment corresponds to his needs and is available to continue to do so until her majority. The added factor of her sister’s presence, who is already placed in this environment until her majority, is also a stabilizing factor. [ 37 ] The mother has made significant strides in her personal situation, her availability for the children as well as the intervention. The progress of her contacts with the children is a reflection of such.

That this process be pursued with the objective of eventually withdrawing supervision is valid. [ 38 ] The live issue is the length of time the prohibition of contacts with the father should be in place within the permanency order. [ 39 ] The father declines seeking contacts with his children in reason of the restrictions to which he is bound by his conditions of release.

Yet, it is pertinent to note that for the Court, this is not the reason which warrants the decision to pursue the prohibition of contacts with the children. [ 40 ] This measure has been in place for numerous years in reason of the serious risk presented by the father as well as his abandonment of the children. Notwithstanding the reasons justifying his absence, the children have spent the larger part of their lives without him.

It is reasonable to conclude that they have little or no recollection of him nor any bond. [ 41 ] Notwithstanding that he is now transparent as to his challenges and sincere in his wish to address these, the risks remain significant, ongoing and unresolved. [ 42 ] The father’s wish to resume contacts is more a reflection of his needs for atonement than of his children’s needs. In point of fact, the Court questions if an eventual resumption of contacts would not in fact undermine their acquired stability and put in peril their development, considering that there is no longer the existence of a significant bond.

What is clear is that the children are not ready to undertake any contacts with their father, in any form. [ 43 ] Overall, the evidence does not permit the Court to determine a specific time frame whereby it would be reasonable to consider that the children would benefit from contacts with their father. [ 44 ] Both parents offer evidence to the effect that their respective situations are evolving and that they are hopeful to eventually be able to progress in regards to their contacts with the children.

The Court clarifies that any of the parties may seize the Court should there be new facts justifying a review of any or all the measures in place. [ 45 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 46 ] GRANTS the motion for extension and revision of a Court order; [ 47 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of C until her majority, namely [...], 2024; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 50 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision of the contacts between the child and her mother following agreement between the parties; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

D and Mrs. E be following agreement between the parties; [ 52 ] FORBIDS any contacts between the child and her father; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their child's regard to put an end to the situation which the security or development of the child are in danger; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 55 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family until her majority;

[ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Kathleen O'Meara Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 8, 2016