2018 QCCQ 16005, 2018 QCCQ 16005

Protection de la jeunesse — 186645 2018 QCCQ 16005 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005399-178 DATE: June 22, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2005 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On November 9, 2017, the Court determines that the security and the development of the child X are in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment stemming from domestic violence in the family environment.

Recognizing that her mother and spouse make substantial efforts to deal with the various issues relating to their dynamic as well as their parental responsibilities, the Court entrusts the child to her family environment while applying various protective measures for one year. [ 2 ] Concurrently, the Court renders a similar order as concerns her half-brothers, Y and Z. [ 3 ] Alleging a renewed degeneration of the family dynamic relating to abuse, the Director of Youth Protection applies for the revision and extension of this order.

While requesting that the child remain in the care of her mother with supervised access to Mr. B, the Director seeks the pursuit of other protective measures for another six months. [ 4 ] The mother as well as the child subscribe to the evaluation and orientation proposed. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] The Court cites the foundation of its last decision as relates to the protective measures in force: [35] The Court concludes that it is possible to effectuate the rehabilitation of the conjugal and family dynamic, with the accompaniment and structure of such services.

The parent’s commitment to change and recognition of their child’s needs convince the Court that this process can continue while the child remain in their care. [36] Notwithstanding, the past history demonstrates that numerous elements of precariousness remain.

Not only must there be rehabilitation of the parent’s capacities, the durability of the changes must also be promoted, requiring monitoring of the family environment to verify the parent’s ability to integrate the tools put in place, but to also maintain a healthy family environment for their child and prioritize their needs. [ 7 ] Since the last order, X resides with her mother, Mr.

B and their two children Y and Z. [ 8 ] Both the mother and her spouse collaborate with the Director as well as with the various services put in place to support the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment and ensure a serene family dynamic. [ 9 ] Despite this, the children continue to be witness to violence and conflicts in the family home.

[ 10 ] On March 8, 2018, an incident of domestic violence occurs in the home. Ten days later, X leaves a note in her school bus stating that her and her siblings are physically abused by her step-father, while relating the incident of her mother being pushed to the ground and punched in the leg. [ 11 ] The same day, she verbalizes to her school principal wishing that her stepfather would stop being abusive. [ 12 ] The mother subsequently takes the children to reside in a shelter.

Her cooperation with the caseworker ceases and when the police authorities communicate with her by phone, she denies the allegations of physical abuse by Mr. B. [ 13 ] The father eventually faces criminal accusations in relation to this incident. A prohibition of contacts is in place with X and her mother. The mother returns to the family home with the children. [ 14 ] On March 22, 2018, the Court renders a provisional order entrusting the children to their mother and forbidding contacts with Mr. B.

The mother undertakes legal proceedings seeking custody of the child’s siblings. [ 15 ] On May 18, the Court revises the provisional measures in order to allow supervised contacts between the children and Mr. B. [ 16 ] The children now reside with their mother. The child’s siblings name missing their father, but appreciating that there are no longer any conflicts. They continue to receive various services related to the situation of endangerment. [ 17 ] Mr. B sees his children twice a week under the supervision of their paternal grandmother.

The case worker testifies that the grandmother is fully aware of her obligations as a supervisor and is collaborative. Drop in visits are also intended. [ 18 ] Mr. B criminal conditions prevent contacts with X and this remains the reflection of her wishes. [ 19 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court concludes that there remains a situation of endangerment requiring the application of protective measures. [ 20 ] The mother’s conjugal relationship is chronically unstable, with the child continually suffering this cyclical dysfunctional dynamic.

The couple’s complex personal histories remain a significant impediment to their ability to deal in a healthy manner with personal or family challenges. [ 21 ] Intense services and the parent’s implication have until now, been insufficient to stem the renewal of violence and crisis in the family environment. [ 22 ] Mr. B shows the greatest challenge in regards to his personal issues (anger management, dependency, mental health).

He declares being open to receiving services and accompaniment, but it is necessary to reflect that this is a recurrent situation which, up until now, resists durable change despite the repeated recourse to services. This permits the Court to conclude that the fundamental issues have yet to be fully addressed. [ 23 ] The child has the right to live and develop in a healthy and serene environment, which is not presently possible while maintaining the mother’s dysfunctional conjugal dynamic.

The mother has shown herself to be protective following the last incidence of domestic abuse, but such is mitigated by the fact that she failed to denounce the incident, such being, once again, revealed by X.

Her transparency remains therefore questionable and the pursuit of measures equally pertinent in order to verify her ability to preserve her child on a durable basis. [ 24 ] As such, the Court endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the child's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 25 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the applications for revision and extension of a Court decision; [ 27 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the order rendered on November 9, 2017; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are also in danger in reason of physical abuse; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

B be determined on mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A and upon her expressed wishes; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 34 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment.

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 22, 2018