2021 QCCQ 11578, 2021 QCCQ 11578

Protection de la jeunesse — 212798 2021 QCCQ 11578 COURT OF QUEBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No.: 505-41-010048-207 DATE: May 10, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE LYNE MORIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X, born on [...], 2014 Child - and - A Mother - and - B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .). [ 1 ] The Court is holding a joint hearing on the situation of the children Y (9 years old) and X (6 years old). [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) presents an application for each child to extend the order rendered on October 15, 2020, following an agreement entered into by the parties. [ 3 ] According to that agreement, the parties acknowledged that the security and development of the children are in danger due to a situation of psychological ill-treatment.

As measures, the parties agreed that the children be entrusted to their mother and that contact with the father be held in the presence of a third party authorized by the Director. The agreement provides for three visits a week between the children and their father: two visits after school and one visit on the weekend. Assistance measures were ordered for six months. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the Court entrust the children to their mother and render an order that contact with their father be following an agreement between the parties, including as to the degree of supervision.

Assistance measures are proposed for one year. [ 5 ] The father asks to see his children more often and without supervision. He considers the Director’s intervention to no longer be necessary. [ 6 ] The mother agrees with the measures sought. For the moment, she does not want supervision to be lifted during the father’s contact because his mental health is unstable. Counsel for the mother filed several text messages written by the father, en liasse . [1] [ 7 ] Counsel for Y explains that the child enjoys visits with his father.

She recommends that the child receive psychological follow- up. [ 8 ] Counsel for X acts pursuant to a legal mandate. After hearing the evidence, she agrees with the Director’s recommendations. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

[ 9 ] Since the last order, the children have been developing positively. They attend a school near the father’s home. For 2021-2022, the parents have been unable to come to an agreement on the terms of the children’s schooling. [ 10 ] Contact between the father and his children has been going well. However, organizing visits is complicated since they are scheduled for three times a week. This frequency interferes with the children’s routine.

The Director wishes to revisit the frequency and duration of contacts. [ 11 ] The DYP in part provides supervision for the visits. [ 12 ] The father acknowledges that he experiences anxiety. However, he denies the “delusional disorder” diagnosis. He no longer takes his medication, but participates in his psychiatric follow-up. [ 13 ] The father spends about 20 hours per week looking for articles and listening to podcasts on different subjects.

His main concerns are: [2] ➢ He believes a civil war is imminent; ➢ He thinks his children are in danger considering how white people are treated in society in the moment; ➢ He believes the school environment is toxic for his children. [ 14 ] The father has not slept much over the last few months.

The sociopolitical climate makes him anxious. [ 15 ] The father states that he does not intend to discuss his various ideologies with the children because they are too young. [ 16 ] The father receives help from the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization and the [CLSC A]. [ 17 ] The father communicates with the mother by text message. He sometimes writes several messages in a row if he does not obtain a response to his messages.

The father also sends the mother different web links to explain to her that her children are in danger and to convince her of his ideologies. [3] The mother feels harassed and controlled. [ 18 ] The parents see the outside world differently. Their versions are opposed and irreconcilable. [ 19 ] The mother wishes to protect the children from the father’s beliefs. [ 20 ] After hearing the evidence and reviewing the documentary evidence, the Court finds that the intervention of the Director is necessary for the next year. The main objectives are to improve communication between the parents and

schedule “mediation” meetings between them to promote co-parenting. [ 21 ] The Director asks the parents to communicate with each other by email to monitor their discussions. The father is, however, reluctant to involve the Director in his communications with the mother. [ 22 ] Completely lifting the supervision of the father’s contact is a goal to be met, if the situation permits.

The father must be able to focus on his children during the visits, despite the anxiety he experiences regarding societal issues. [ 23 ] A relationship of trust and respect must be rebuilt between the parents. [ 24 ] Consequently, the measures sought by the Director are in the interest of the children. [ 25 ] The Court also orders psychological follow-up for the children, despite the father’s disagreement. The children are caught up in the parental conflict. This follow-up will allow them to be heard and helped with respect to their family situation.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 28 ] EXTENDS AND REVISES the Court order rendered on October 15, 2020; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be following an agreement between the parties concerning the frequency and the modalities including the degree of supervision; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child received all health care and all health services namely psychological follow up; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that parents participate in mediation sessions in the presence of the Director; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that communication between the parents be done by email; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment;

[ 37 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. __________________________________ Lyne Morin , J.C.Q. Mtre Adrienne Fournier-Sirois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Gisèle Tremblay Counsel for the child Mtre Eleni Gallos Counsel for the mother Mtre Lori Boyadjian Counsel for the father Date of hearing: Judgment signed: May 10, 2021 June 9, 2021