r v. A, 2014 QCCQ 20248

Protection de la jeunesse — 148262 2014 QCCQ 20248 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004267-129 760-41-004266-121 760-41-004268-127 DATE: September 10, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born on […], 2003 Y, born on […], 2006 Z, born on […], 2008 Children ______________________________________________________________________ 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 of a Court decision rendered on February 14, 2014 concerning the siblings X, Y and Z, born respectively on […], 2003, […], 2006 and […], 2008. [ 2 ] The motion alleges the necessity of revising and prolonging the application of protective measures for one year, more notably that the children remain in the care of their mother with supervision of the father’s contacts.

The Director requests various other measures of aid and support for the family in view of stemming the situation of endangerment, namely that the children benefit from therapy. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court record. The mother agrees with the recommended orientation, but asks to be able to be with the father in the presence of the children in specific circumstances (school meetings, emergencies). She offers that the visits be held at the family home in her absence. [ 4 ] The father contests the motion and specifies that he will not participate with further protective measures.

He does agree that the children benefit from therapy and will cooperate with such a process. [ 5 ] The attorney for the children specifies that X is in agreement to living with her mother, although she would eventually prefer sharing her time between her parents. She wants to see her father more often, preferably in an unsupervised manner. She does, however, agree to supervision being maintained for the therapeutic process. As for Y and Z, the attorney stipulates a legal mandate.

After considering the evidence, she supports the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] Context [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection intervenes as to the children and their family since early 2012. On August 16, 2012, the Court determines that the children’s security and development are in danger in reason of a situation of psychological ill-treatment and protective measures are put in place for a period of one year. The children remain in the care of their parents. [ 8 ] On February 14, 2014, the Court revises and prolongs this order for a period of one year. At the time of the hearing, the

parents are living separately and the father exercise access on a structured basis.

The Court permits a progressive reinstatement of the father’s unsupervised parental access in view of a possible conjugal reconciliation and this, in view of the evidence of a significant period without incident of conjugal conflict and the continued participation of the parents in a therapeutic process. [ 9 ] The Court further permits the father’s full reintegration in the family domicile as of June 14, 2014, conditional to an agreement with the mother to this effect. [ 10 ] This being the context of the previous judgment, herewith are the pertinent facts as pertains to the present motion, which are proven to the satisfaction of the Court. [ 11 ] From February to May 2014, the father benefits from the visitation provided virtue of the last order, until such time as he spends consecutive days at the family home on a weekly basis.

During this period, the parents report continuing their follow-up with [ Organism A] and that their communication is improved. [ 12 ] As the family reunification progresses, tensions reappear. The father fails to respect the visitation

schedule and becomes increasingly controlling in the family environment. Conflicts ensue in reason of diverging opinions as to the exercise of parental authority. [ 13 ] The mother contacts an attorney to commence divorce proceedings. [ 14 ] On May 5, 2014, an altercation occurs in the family home, wherein the father is verbally abusive to the mother and the children. The next day, mother leaves with the children and integrates a shelter. [ 15 ] The caseworker meets with the parents. The father reports the events as misunderstandings.

The mother states that the father returns to his previous patterns and signals that she has no intention on working on their relationship anymore. Notwithstanding, she wants the children to continue to benefit from their father’s presence. After discussion, the parents and the caseworker are unable to come to an agreement as the father insists on shared custody. The father threatens to abandon his children. [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection applies emergency measures, reinstating the supervision of the father's contacts with the children. The Court ratifies this measure on a provisional basis.

The father agrees to leave the family home, permitting the mother to reintegrate with the children. [ 17 ] A calendar of supervised contacts is put in place, which occur in the family home on a weekly basis. These visits progress relatively well. The parents are able to maintain a civil, although tense, relationship. [ 18 ] In July, the parties agree that the children have more access to their father in an unsupervised, yet structured environment. [ 19 ] The father becomes increasingly belligerent and resistant towards protective services.

A succession of written communications (exhibit D-2) exhibits the father’s attitudes towards the caseworker, wherein he refers to protective services torturing his children, victimizing his family and refusing to respect his rights. His testimony before the Court shows an amplification of his opposition to protective measures. He states that he will refuse to participate in supervised visitation. [ 20 ] An educator provides services to the family since October 2013, particularly in regards to the father’s visitation. The children resist the father’s authority and the visits are oftentimes chaotic.

Outside the visits, the children often refer to their brother C. [ 21 ] Although the father is generally receptive to their interventions, overall, he fails to integrate their suggestions. The educator recommends the end of their services because the father is not responding to their interventions and their participation is now counter- productive. He doesn't apply the tools or recommendations and his lack of recognition as to the difficulties impedes any progress.

The therapeutic process needs further exploration before they can intervene positively with the family. [ 22 ] Psychological evaluations [ 23 ] As ordered by the Court, the children benefit from a psychological evaluation, which underlines that they are all suffering from distress and depressive symptoms. They continue to be impacted by their brother’s departure from the family unit, situation which remains veiled in secrecy in their regard.

Although they continue to function well, the psychological evaluation suggests that should this situation remain unchecked; the actualisation of their potential could be affected. [ 24 ] The psychologist recommends that the family receive therapy, in order to help the children to make sense of their internalized feelings as to the events occurring in their environment and, specifically, pierce the secret of their brother’s departure from the family unit, in terms adapted to their level of understanding.

Once this initial step is taken, the children can start to make sense of their feelings and respond to their distress. [ 25 ] The psychologist suggests this therapy should favour the trans-cultural dimensions of the situation.

The parents should eventually integrate this therapy and need to offer their full cooperation in order to permit that this process have a positive impact. [ 26 ] During the therapeutic process, the psychologist considers that the children’s contacts with their father should remain under supervision, for the following reasons: • The children need reassurance to re-establish trust in their parents; • To support the father in responding to the children’s interrogations; • The mother is unable to adequately administer and supervise the father’s contacts, in view of the conjugal and conflictual context; [ 27 ] The evaluation further suggests that should this process not relieve the children’s distress, this should signal a re-evaluation of

their long-term needs.

The Court cites: If that is not feasible, it would be important to consider which life milieu would suit best the children because the current family milieu would then be maintaining them in a situation that hampers the development and psycho-affective well-being of the children. (Psychological assessment report (X), exhibit D-3, page 6) [ 28 ] Analysis and decision [ 29 ] The evidence underlines the failure of the protective measures to effectuate any substantial change in the children’s situation, and this, substantially because the underlying reasons causing the emotional disruptions are not addressed. [ 30 ] The Court is able to further clarify the importance and cyclical nature of the dynamic of conjugal conflict and violence, of which the children are still enmeshed, creating the situation of endangerment.

Notwithstanding the intensity of measures put in place since the beginning of the intervention, neither parent has been able to consistently and independently keep the children at bay of conflict.

Only when outside structure and controls are in place, are the children able to evolve in a serene environment. [ 31 ] The swift return to the dysfunctional elements of the conjugal dynamic after the relaxing of the structure surrounding the contacts, stresses the need for the continued implication of the Director of Youth Protection, as well as the supervision of these contacts. [ 32 ] In point of fact, the father’s testimony demonstrates that he makes no fundamental changes in his attitudes nor functioning and this, notwithstanding the application of various measures since 2012.

His participation in the measures to date is conformist, as he recognizes no responsibility in the situation of endangerment and continues to blame the mother and the Director of Youth Protection for keeping him from realizing his parental responsibilities. Furthermore, this belief of victimization is now entrenched and constitutes an impediment to accompanying him towards the rehabilitation of his parental role. [ 33 ] Remains to be seen if the father will give way to his declared intent of not participating in the contacts, should supervision be maintained.

This would obviously have a detrimental impact on the children and their welfare, while reflecting the father’s inability to disassociate his needs from his children’s. [ 34 ] As for the mother, although she is able to be a nurturing and protective parent, the complexity of the conjugal relationship and the unresolved issues with the father, infringes her capacity for objective consistency in his regard. [ 35 ] For all these reasons, the children are repeatedly placed in a situation of psychological ill-treatment. [ 36 ] Consequently, after considering the evidence the Court determines that the situation of endangerment is still active and that consequently, the pursuit of protective measures is necessary in the best interests of the children.

Furthermore, the recommendations sought by the Director of Youth Protection reflect the needs of the children to be kept at bay of psychological ill-treatment, while benefiting from a therapeutic process destined to help them progress. [ 37 ] The supervision of the father’s contacts remains necessary in order to allow the children to invest in the therapeutic process and shield them from any further incidents of conflict.

Should the family evolve within this framework, and upon recommendations to this effect by the therapist, the Court permits that the parties revise the need for supervision by mutual agreement. [ 38 ] Within the construct of the intervention, the Court details certain measures in order to clarify guidelines for the father’s visitation. [ 39 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the children be upon agreement between the parties, and supervised by a third party; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the parents report on the measures they apply to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 45 ] PERMITS the withdrawal of supervision either on a partial or complete basis following the evolution of the situation and particularly of the family therapy; [ 46 ] Save agreement between the parties: ➢ FORBIDS the mother from permitting any access between her children and their father; ➢ ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the children be in the absence of the mother; ➢ ORDERS that the transition of the children, and the visits with their father, take place in a neutral environment; ➢ FORBIDS the parents from being in presence of each other while the children are present; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures ordered, namely:

➢ Respect the calendar of contacts established with the Director of Youth Protection; ➢ Participate in the elaboration of the intervention plan; ➢ Cooperate with the family therapy; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the children benefit from a family therapy as recommended by Dr.

Sébastien Gaumon; [ 49 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will increase the visits and revise supervision following the said family therapy, in view of the recommendation of the therapist and the children's best interests; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family; [ 51 ] TAKES ACT that the parents agree that the Director of Youth Protection communicate with the children's school, [ Organism A] , and the family therapist and further agree to sign any documents required for such; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in an individual therapy and continue his follow-up with Via L'Anse ; [ 53 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue her follow-up at [ Organism B] for conjugal violence and that she participate in an individual therapy; [ 54 ] PERMITS the Director of Youth Protection to carry out unannounced visits; [ 55 ] PERMITS the Director of Youth Protection to meet with the children individually and/or in the absence of their parents and further RECOMMENDS that these visits not occur in the school environment; [ 56 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of six months; [ 57 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: September 10, 2014