2019 QCCQ 12038, 2019 QCCQ 12038

Protection de la jeunesse — 192313 2019 QCCQ 12038 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005839-181 760-41-005838-183 760-41-005829-182 DATE: January 22, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2008 Y, born [...], 2005 Z, born [...], 2003 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant 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 ] Alleging educational neglect and psychological ill-treatment, the Director of Youth Protection applies for various measures of aid and protection in regards to the siblings X, Y and Z. [ 2 ] Both parents subscribe to the Director’s evaluation and orientation, as do the children X and Y.

As for Z, she leaves to the Court’s appreciation the evaluation of the situation, stating that she doesn’t want to actively participate in the measures. [ 3 ] The mother asks for an order allowing that a homebound educator resume services to support her in her parental role. The Director contests this request, alleging that the mother has already received the appropriate tools and is at the stage of learning to apply them. [ 4 ] Analysis and decision [ 5 ] The children reside with their mother since their parent’s separation in 2014. [ 6 ] The children are witness to a persistent parental conflict.

The parents are unable to come to a co-parenting agreement and their communication is difficult. They maintain negative perceptions regarding the other, which is translated to their children through various [ 7 ] The parents diverge as to their appreciation of their parental dynamic. Although the mother agrees to the existence of challenges, the father states that there is no parental conflict. [ 8 ] The children can present difficult behaviours, namely opposition and fighting.

The mother admits being often overwhelmed by this and to having inappropriate reactions and responses to these (yelling, throwing objects, physical interventions). [ 9 ] The three children demonstrate needs for mental health services to help them deal with their internal feelings and everything that they have gone through since their parent’s separation. [ 10 ] Z is rapidly emotional and distraught. She has a tendency to shut down and states feeling caught within the parental conflict. Y and X are also observed as internalizing their feelings concerning their family dynamic.

[ 11 ] In March 2018, the parties come to an agreement on the application of protective measures for a period of nine months, recognizing that the children require better structure and that they suffer from a loyalty conflict affecting their well-being. [ 12 ] The services of a homebound educator are put in place. The mother cooperates and appreciates the services. Rules and structure are clearly established. Considering that the family receives the appropriate tools, the follow-up comes to an end. [ 13 ] An educator offers services to the children and their family in view of the family structure and rules.

Although some improvement is observed, the situation remains unresolved and the mother recognizes that she is still unable to fully exercise her parental role as an authority figure. [ 14 ] This service comes to an end in October as it is considered that the mother has received the tools and counsel [ 15 ] The parents also participate in joint discussions in view of improving their cooperation and communication. Initially, agreement is difficult and the parents remain anchored in their perceptions. Over time, this improves.

In the last meeting, they were able to communicate calmly and focus on their children’s needs. [ 16 ] The objective is to eventually integrate the children in these meetings. The parents seem to be on board with this plan. They recognize the need to improve the situation and facilitate more open communication within the family dynamic. [ 17 ] After evaluating the evidence as well as the parties’ positions, the Court endorses the conclusions sought by the Director of Youth Protection.

Although improvements are made through the application of voluntary measures, the situation still remains fragile as pertains to the family dynamic as well as the application of structure. [ 18 ] The goals of the intervention are to accompany the parents in the application of a clear and coherent structure, that the mother fully assume her role and that the parents no longer implicate the children in their conflict. [ 19 ] Remains the two issues which do not have consensus. [ 20 ] Is it necessary that a homebound educator offer continued services to the mother? [ 21 ] While conceding having been well equipped during the initial follow-up with a homebound educator, the mother states still feeling uneasy with the application of the tools and advice offered.

The children’s behaviours can still be challenging and she feels that a more punctual support in specific situations would be beneficial and further help her to react adequately in various situations which come up with the children. . [ 22 ] Although she can receive advice from the caseworker, the appointments are sometimes distanced and focused on other issues. [ 23 ] The mother citing a need to be reassured in her parental role and further accompanied by an educator, the Court endorses her request.

Her transparency in admitting still feeling overwhelmed at times with her parental responsibilities, which is the basis of the educational neglect cited by the Director, justify that this service be renewed. [ 24 ] And what of Z’s participation? [ 25 ] Although the Court evaluates each child’s situation distinctly in function of their needs and vulnerabilities, the evidence clearly establish that Z’s security and development are also in danger.

Not only is she an integral part of the family dynamic and its problematic issues, the evidence demonstrates that she is affected by such on a profound level. [ 26 ] Her request to not participate in the follow-up is therefore not, in the Court’s view, the reflection of her being exempt from any repercussions, but of the intensity of such on her. The Court is sensitive to her feelings of wishing to distance herself from the process of rehabilitation and just go on with her normal adolescent activities.

Unfortunately, ignoring a problem is just not a reparative solution, especially when the other members of her family will be engaged in such a process. [ 27 ] On the other hand, Z’s best interest dictates that she go forward at her rhythm. For these reasons, the Court reduces her active participation to the family meetings which will occur with the caseworker.

Although this doesn’t exclude her receiving other services, such will have to follow her expressed wishes. [ 28 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the applications for protection; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children in danger in reason of: • educational neglect (article 38b)1)iii) Youth Protection Act ) • psychological ill-treatment (article 38c) Youth Protection Act ) [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be following agreement between the parties; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the services of an educator be put in place until the parties deem otherwise; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the children X and Y as well as their parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that Z take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered as relates to the family meetings to occur in

conjunction with the case workers; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 37 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children 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 Applicant Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for Z Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for X and Y Date of hearing: January 22, 2019