2022 QCCQ 3160, 2022 QCCQ 3160

Protection de la jeunesse — 221760 2022 QCCQ 3160 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-006609-211 DATE: February 17, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2010 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant and.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 child resides with his parents under a joint custody arrangement. [ 2 ] In his maternal environment he lives with his mother, her spouse (Mr.

C) and their two children, respectively 4 and 6 years old. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks a 9-months protection order stemming from the child’s repeated exposure to his stepfather’s aggressive attitudes and behaviors, mostly in a disciplinary context. [ 4 ] In parallel proceedings, the Court is also seized of applications for protection in regards to the child’s younger siblings. [ 5 ] The mother contests the Director’s evaluation as to the situation of endangerment as well as the family’s need for a follow-up.

She denies that her spouse’s interactions with the children warrant the application of protective measures. Furthermore, she submits that the family is able to autonomously deal with any issues and that the Director’s involvement will only serve to add pressure on their dynamic. [ 6 ] The father offers a nuanced position. He recognizes the facts but questions the need for a follow-up.

He declares himself ready to fully cooperate should the Court decide to put measures in place. [ 7 ] The child, represented by attorney, is in agreement with the Director’s evaluation and proposed orientation. [ 8 ] In view to the respective positions, the Court defines the following litigious issues: i. Is the child exposed to a family dynamic which results in psychological ill-treatment? ii. If such is the case, is the security and/or the development of the child in danger? iii.

What measures should be put in place to protect the child and reach the objectives of the law? [ 9 ] After having considered the evidence, the Court endorses the application, while also providing additional measures destined to address the specific challenges in place. [ 10 ] Follows are the elements justifying this decision. Context [ 11 ] X functions positively in all aspects of his life. He is generally well-behaved, good humored and sociable. He is also described as being sensitive and prone to being anxious. He has no issues as to truthfulness nor respecting authority.

[ 12 ] He has good relationships with his parents and siblings. [ 13 ] His parents are able to co-parent and maintain good communication. [ 14 ] The Director’s intervention follows verbalisations made by the child in April 2021. [ 15 ] X is at school. He’s observed to be preoccupied and upset. He asks two of his teachers to speak urgently with the principal. He adds that he is worried for his two younger siblings as his mother’s boyfriend is mean with them. [ 16 ] When he speaks to the school principal, he is very upset. He fears for his siblings because his stepfather is being too rough with them.

His stepfather is often in a bad mood and yells a lot at them. He has seen him grab and throw his siblings on their bed and spank them. [ 17 ] Such incidents would happen two or three times a week when he is present and has been ongoing for a long time. His siblings would be scared of their father’s reactions and sometimes hide from him. [ 18 ] His mother sometimes intervenes, but without much result.

When he asks her why his stepfather reacts that way, she responds that he has had a complicated life. [ 19 ] He has also spoken of this to his father, who tells him that it doesn’t concern him as it relates to the mother’s children. [ 20 ] The Director of Youth Protection intervenes shortly thereafter. [ 21 ] In a subsequent meeting with the school principal and the caseworker, the child offers a coherent version of the facts explained in regards to the family dynamic at his mother’s home.

He maintains his version at the Court hearing (written admission). [ 22 ] Advised of the content of the complaint by the caseworker, the mother states having no concerns as to her spouse’s interactions with the children. He is a good parent and has an affectionate relationship with the children. As to discipline, he can sometimes raise his voice and occasionally spank them on their bottoms. [ 23 ] She recognizes that her spouse can be impulsive and reactive at times and would probably benefit from anger management services.

His short temper is an ongoing issue, but he continues to work on it and has improved in this regard. She adds that there have been family stressors which they are actively dealing with. [ 24 ] Mr. C is reluctant to meet with the caseworker, but finally does so at his spouse’s insistence. He denies any inappropriate interactions with the children, although he admits lacking patience as relates with dealing with their behaviors. [ 25 ] He is openly mistrustful of social services, having been followed under protective measures in the past.

He also indicates that he remains haunted by his criminal record, which sometimes leads to him being less available for his children. [ 26 ] Both of them reject the need for services. [ 27 ] The father cooperates fully. He is aware of Mr. C’s impulsive reactions since his son reports this to him on numerous occasions.

He confirms not having thought necessary to intervene as his son confirmed not being directly involved. [ 28 ] Overall, the mother and her spouse retract any active participation with the Director after the evaluation process. [ 29 ] The mother initially exchanges with the caseworkers and she participates in the judicial process. [ 30 ] Mr. C refuses all exchanges with the caseworkers and is openly hostile at all attempts to do so.

He also chooses to not participate in case management process nor attend the hearing. [ 31 ] He also fails to respect a Court order authorizing caseworkers to meet with his children and this, despite the mother’s efforts to convince him to comply. [ 32 ] X verbalizes that since the Director’s involvement, the situation at his mother’s is improved. His stepfather yells less and they have more family activities.

Analysis and decision [ 33 ] Is the child exposed to a family dynamic which results in psychological ill-treatment? [ 34 ] The evidence demonstrates that such is the case. [ 35 ] Firstly, the child’s version of the situation in his family environment, is both credible and reliable to the fact that he is continually exposed to his step-father’s emotional reactivity. [ 36 ] The following facts sustain this conclusion: • He repeats his version of facts to numerous persons (caseworker, father, school principal, lawyer); • He demonstrates ongoing distress in regards to the dynamic in his maternal environment; • Mr.

C has a history of issues relating to his emotional stability and impulsivity;

• Mr. C adopts aggressive and impulsive behaviours to the caseworkers; [ 37 ] Over time, his distress increases. The school authorities observe that he is less attentive during the weeks he resides with his mother. [ 38 ] He turns to his parents to help him, to no avail. Feeling overwhelmed and without guidance, he finally seeks out another authority figure available to him – his school principal.

The depths of his despair at this moment is heartbreaking and the demonstration of how the situation has impacted him on a profound level. [ 39 ] The conjugal dynamic between the mother and her spouse is also a pertinent factor in the Court’s determination. [ 40 ] Although the mother testifies to having a positive relationship with her spouse, the evidence demonstrates that Mr.

C’s moods and emotional outbursts are subject of frequent frictions and negotiations between them. [ 41 ] During the proceedings, the evidence demonstrates that the mother has limited control over her spouse’s reactions and perceptions, which contributes to this situation not being adequately addressed, allowing her son’s distress to culminate and eventually overwhelm him. [ 42 ] Such is the foundation of the finding of psychological ill-treatment. [ 43 ] If such is the case, is the security and/or the development of the child in danger? [ 44 ] Once psychological ill-treatment is proven, there is a presumption that the child’s security and/or development are in danger.

Such can be overturned by contrary evidence. [ 45 ] To varying degrees, both parents question the necessity of measures, thereby also questioning the issue of endangerment. [ 46 ] While not contradicting her son’s verbalisations nor that her spouse can demonstrate anger issues, the mother submits that the situation has improved and that the Director’s intervention will only serve to put additional pressure on the family and that they are able to independently deal with their issues. [ 47 ] In point of fact, since the Director’s involvement, the child confirms that there have been improvements at his mother’s.

The dynamic is calmer, his stepfather yells less and there are more activities.

Notwithstanding, he relates that there are still incidents when his stepfather can yell or spank his siblings. [ 48 ] For the Court, such is insufficient to counter the evidence demonstrating that the challenges underlying the situation of psychological ill-treatment are still very much present, therefore maintaining the child at risk. [ 49 ] As well as the child’s exposure to his stepfather’s reactivity, other factors relating to parental sensitivity contribute to the situation of endangerment. [ 50 ] The father chose to not intervene when his son clearly, and repeatedly, named his concerns as to his stepfather’s emotional outbursts and educational methods. [ 51 ] Such is also the case for the mother with additional complexities being in play. [ 52 ] While able to recognize her spouse’s impulsivity and rigidity, she prioritizes family harmony by mediating what she can and conceding on what she cannot.

This results on the family dynamic pivoting on her spouse’s mood, to the detriment of the children. [ 53 ] Already a challenging dynamic, such has become more intense and complex following the Director’s arrival, as her spouse is openly hostile and rejecting of any interventions, including those of the Court. [ 54 ] The conclusion is that although well-intentioned, both parents have been remiss in recognizing their son’s distress.

The overall result is that the parents prioritize their own needs to the detriment of their son’s, namely that he receive guidance, support and ultimately, protection. [ 55 ] Until these issues have been properly addressed, the security and the development of the child remain in danger and there is a necessity of putting measures in place to rehabilitate the situation. [ 56 ] What measures should be put in place to protect the child and reach the objectives of the law? [ 57 ] The objectives of the measures are to ensure that the child is no longer subjected to the recognized elements of endangerment while operating a long-term rehabilitation. [ 58 ] In the present situation, the Court considers that the orientation sought by the Director corresponds to these objectives. [ 59 ] The Court expects that the parties cooperate in good faith in view of resolving the issues at hand.

While such is the case, it is necessary to address the ongoing challenges stemming from dynamics in the maternal environment and the consequent preoccupations as to the mother’s cooperation in the future. [ 60 ] For these reasons, the Court expounds on the nature of the active participation ordered. [ 61 ] Consequently, while endorsing the conclusions sought by the applications, the Court deems necessary to provide additional clarity in the measures.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 62 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 63 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger for the following reason: • Psychological ill-treatment (article 38c) Youth Protection Act ) [ 64 ] MAINTAINS the child with his family; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 66 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, namely: • Participate in scheduled meetings with the case worker(s); • Invest themselves in the recommended services and/or follow-ups; [ 67 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 68 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment; [ 69 ] THE WHOLE for 9 months. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Alexandre Germain Attorney for the Applicant Me Karine P.

Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 22 and December 15, 2021 Date of signature: February 17, 2022