2017 QCCQ 18640, 2017 QCCQ 18640

Protection de la jeunesse — 179072 2017 QCCQ 18640 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-031996-168 DATE : April 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2002 Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] In the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to declare that the security and the development of the children X, Y and Z are endangered as a result of psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director is alleging that the children are continuously exposed to parental conflict including conjugal violence.

Furthermore, the father pressures the children to take his side, thereby provoking a conflict of loyalty. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the children remain in the care of their mother to the exclusion of the father for as long as deemed necessary by the treating professionals, along with the application of various corrective measures including a social follow-up for one year. [ 4 ] The mother admits to all of the allegations and consents to the measures proposed. [ 5 ] The father admits to the majority of the allegations related to the situation of endangerment including physical altercations.

He denies however uttering threats towards the mother in reference to an incident for which he currently faces criminal charges. The father consents to the Director’s recommendations and agrees to participate in therapy. [ 6 ] Although the parents are currently separated, they are both open to an eventual reunification once the situation has sufficiently evolved to allow for the possibility. [ 7 ] The children each admit the majority of the allegations and consent to the measures proposed.

Although they express the desire to have the family reunified, they acknowledge that their father must first make certain changes in order to ensure lasting harmony within the home environment. The three express suffering greatly from the strife that they have witnessed. The state of endangerment [ 8 ] On September 25, 2016, the police were called to the family home as a result of an altercation between the parents. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the father was arrested for uttering threats towards the mother and was required to leave the home.

Charges are currently pending. [ 9 ] This is the context in which a signalement was retained by the Director. The investigation that followed establishes the following:

- The parents argue constantly, primarily about their financial situation; - Their arguments tend to escalate to the point of becoming physical; - On more than one occasion, X has intervened in order to put an end to a physical altercation between his parents. - These disputes occur regularly in the presence of all three children; - The father is particularly denigrating towards the mother; - The mother cries frequently and has manifested self-harming behaviour on one occasion in reaction to the father’s hostile attitude towards her. [ 10 ] The children describe various incidents of conjugal violence that occur several times a month.

In particular, they have observed their father slap and push their mother as well as grab her by the throat. [ 11 ] In reaction to the Director’s intervention, the father has pressured the children to report negative things about their mother. Furthermore, he questions the children repeatedly to obtain information about the mother’s activities. [ 12 ] The mother confirms that the father is extremely controlling towards her and forbids her from having contact with certain members of her family. He repeatedly berates her and accuses her of stealing or cheating without justification.

Although she maintains that he has physically threatened her in the past, she is convinced that he would never follow through. That being said, the distress that she has endured has led to suicidal thoughts and self-harming behaviour. [ 13 ] During the course of an interview with the social worker, the father denied the allegations of violence. From his perspective, the mother and her family were to blame for the disputes, describing them all as liars and thieves. He targeted the mother’s spending as a main source of conflict and justified his refusal to work on that basis.

He failed to show any concern towards the mother’s distress and treated her threats of suicide as “stupid” [1] . In addition, he expressly denied that the children were in any way impacted by the situation in the home. [ 14 ] During the evaluation process, the worker observed the father raise his voice aggressively, talking over the other participants and refusing to hear another point of view. His tendency to denigrate the mother was apparent yet he continued to deny any responsibility for the conflict within the couple.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 15 ] The evidence demonstrates that the children have been exposed to conflict and strife within the home on a consistent basis. The circumstances described are troubling and certainly justify the Director’s intervention. The recurrence of violence is detrimental to the development and well-being of these children who are entitled to the benefit of a secure and harmonious environment. [ 16 ] Of particular concern is the father’s apparent lack of sensitivity to his children’s predicament.

Although the evidence indicates that he has a close relationship with them and that he expresses concern for their future, he fails to acknowledge the role that his own behaviour has played in their distress. [ 17 ] The mother has acknowledged the impact of the situation on her children. For their protection, she is determined that any scenario involving the father’s return to the home is conditional to successful therapy. [ 18 ] The Court agrees that anything less is not in the children’s interest.

The insidious effects of the violence and denigration in the home must not be underestimated. [ 19 ] Considering the admissions of the parties and the information contained in the Court reports filed into evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the children are endangered as a result of psychological ill-treatment. The Measures [ 20 ] Since the Director’s involvement, the father’s collaboration has been minimal. Until the hearing, he maintained a general denial of the allegations.

Consequently, there has been no progress regarding the issues previously identified. [ 21 ] Through his lawyer, the father now admits to the allegations related to denigration and physical altercations with the mother. He states his willingness to participate in therapy with the objective of returning home. [ 22 ] Such a late change of position calls into question the sincerity of the father’s commitment to change. The Court encourages him to follow through with the Director’s recommendations in an honest and forthright manner.

It is expected that services will be made available to him in order to improve anger management, empathy and communication skills. Any effective change will require serious effort, determination and motivation on his part. [ 23 ] Regarding contact, the worker explains that the children organise their visits directly with the father.

She is of the opinion that there is no need to monitor the contacts but adds that the father must be prohibited from questioning them about the mother in order to preserve them from a conflict of loyalty. [ 24 ] After considering all of the evidence, and taking into account the consent of the parties, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the children’s best interest. [ 25 ] FOR THESE REASONS,

[ 26 ] THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are endangered as a result of psychological ill-treatment; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to the care of the mother to the exclusion of the father for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP in consultation with other treating professionals; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP regarding the measures taken to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents and the adolescent take active participation in the measures ordered; [ 32 ] PROHIBITS the parents from exposing the adolescent to verbal or physical violence; [ 33 ] PROHIBITS the parents from denigrating each other in the adolescent's presence; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in anger management therapy or any other services suggested by the DYP; [ 35 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain access to information regarding the father’s participation in said therapy; [ 36 ] PROHIBITS the father from questioning his adolescent regarding the mother during the course of any contact; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On May 17, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q . Heidi Lechter Attorney for the D.Y.P. Caroline McKenna Attorney for the child Maïa Sureau Attorney for the mother Richard Brunet Attorney for the father Date of hearing: April 20, 2017 KO/lf