2020 QCCQ 7673, 2020 QCCQ 7673

Protection de la jeunesse — 206238 2020 QCCQ 7673 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001260-207 DATE : July 31, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- B Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the Court declare the security and development of the child X in danger for the motive of physical abuse and psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] As protective measures, the Director recommends to entrust the child to her mother, to authorize supervised contact with her father, according to the modalities set by the Director, to authorize the possibility of lifting the said supervision according to the evolution of the situation and to order a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 3 ] At the hearing held on July 31, 2020, the mother is present and represented by a lawyer.

She recognizes the situation of compromission, agrees with the proposed measures and to the filing of the reports as evidence. [ 4 ] The father is also present and represented by a lawyer. He does not admit the motive of physical abuse but acknowledges the motive of psychological ill-treatment. He agrees with the proposed measures. The father requests that the Court order that the child attend daycare. [ 5 ] The child's lawyer, after hearing the evidence, considers that the Director has met its burden to prove both motives of compromission.

As for the measures, she disagrees with the possibility of lifting the supervision of the father’s contact and recommends

that two appointments take place with the father before there is any resumption of contact with the child. Questions in litigation [ 6 ] Are the security and development of the child in danger for the motive of physical abuse? [ 7 ] Should the supervision of contacts with the father be lifted? [ 8 ] Should the child attend daycare?

The family‘s situation [ 9 ] The parents are separated since October 2019. [ 10 ] A Superior Court judgment stipulates that the mother has custody of the child and that the father has supervised contacts every other weekend. [ 11 ] These contacts are to be supervised by the paternal grandmother. [ 12 ] According to this judgment, the father also was to submit to a drug test before January 21 st to demonstrate that he did not use any other drug than marijuana. [ 13 ] Since the separation, X (1 year old) lives with her mother and her half-sister Y (7 years old), at her maternal grandmother’s house.

The intervention of the director [ 14 ] On December 13 th , 2020, the Director retains a report pertaining to physical abuse by the father on the child. [ 15 ] The mother states that the father is violent with the child and that he has been physically, verbally and psychologically abusing her as well in the past. [ 16 ] In fact, on December 2 nd , 2019, she had filed a criminal complaint against the father. [ 17 ] The father denies committing domestic violence or threats against the mother or physical abuse on X. [ 18 ] He states that the mother would be the one with aggressivity issues. [ 19 ] The Director evaluates the situation as founded for physical abuse by the father on the child and for psychological ill-treatment because of the child’s exposure to domestic violence. [ 20 ] On January 17, 2020, immediate protective measures were applied to suspend contacts between father and child. [ 21 ] On January 23rd, 2020, the Court ordered provisional measures entrusting the child to the mother at the exclusion of the father and authorizing supervised contacts with the father, while allowing the lifting of the supervision if the situation allowed.

The situation of compromission [ 22 ] Although the parents have different versions of events, both agree that they had a volatile relationship and that the child was present at times and exposed to their quarrels. [ 23 ] Thus the motive of psychological ill-treatment is admitted. [ 24 ] According to the mother, the first major event of physical violence by the father dated from March 2019. [ 25 ] She claims that the father was angry and violent against her and that he had X in his arms. [ 26 ] While she was on the floor being kicked by the father, he took the baby by the foot and held her in the air head down saying: " I’ll kill this baby, the same way you broke my guitar ". [ 27 ] He then tried to choke her, threw her on the bed and Y, who was present, jumped on the father to stop him. [ 28 ] She mentions other events of violence, one of which happened when the father was angry because he was not able to change X’s diaper and threw her in her crib. [ 29 ] The mother’s version of these events is corroborated by Y, who gave a spontaneous declaration when she was met by the delegate. [ 30 ] The 7 years old child states that “ B (the father) he hurt my mom so we had to move to my grandmother’s ”. [ 31 ] She says that the father screams a lot and that she feels safer now that she doesn’t live with him anymore. [ 32 ] Y gets emotional when she explains that the father once got mad because he was not able to change X’s diaper. [ 33 ] According to Y, the father took X, threw her in her crib.

The baby was crying. Y further states that she was scared making a

gesture like she was protecting herself with her arms. [ 34 ] She adds that the father was screaming at X saying, “ I will kill you ”. [ 35 ] He then left the room and Y changed her sister’s diaper. [ 36 ] Y also confirmed some events that the mother recounted, namely when the father pushed the mother, pulled her hair and choked her, adding that she tried to protect her mother by jumping on his back. [ 37 ] After hearing both parents' version of events, the Court finds that the evidence supports the mother’s version. [ 38 ] The father mainly says that the description of the events is filled with lies. [ 39 ] He justifies and minimizes his behaviour.

His testimony is incoherent.

When the Court asks questions about his definition of arguments, he becomes defensive and evades to answer. [ 40 ] Confronted about Y’s version of events, he says that the child is good at repeating what she is told, hinting that the mother would have told her what to say. [ 41 ] He only admits the part where Y jumped on his back to protect her mother. [ 42 ] This contradicts other parts of his testimony when he says that Y is “ daddy’s ” girl. [ 43 ] If this is so, then the child has no gain in lying about these events. [ 44 ] The delegate who heard Y’s testimony confirms that the child’s affect was in conformity with her declaration and shows other elements of reliability. [ 45 ] In short, the Court does not believe the father’s version of events. [ 46 ] The evidence is paramount that the father’s reactions when he is annoyed or frustrated is to resort to verbal and physical violence. [ 47 ] This is denied by the father who claims to be impulsive but not violent.

The father puts all the responsibility on the mother. [ 48 ] The mother admits that she has anger issues and is transparent about her personal problems and says she is willing to work on her issues. [ 49 ] In light of the whole evidence, the Court finds that the Director has met the burden of proof to demonstrate that the child is subject of physical abuse by the father.

The measures to put an end to the situation [ 50 ] Both parents need to obtain professional help to manage their personal issues. [ 51 ] The mother must learn how to be more protective of her children. [ 52 ] The court notes that when conjugal violence first occurred and her children were exposed to it she did not seek help right away. [ 53 ] Now, she has to build her self-esteem, better detect abusive relationships and avoid getting caught in them. [ 54 ] A follow-up for victims of conjugal violence would be recommended. [ 55 ] The delegate reports that the mother is collaborating well with the social follow-up. [ 56 ] She is proactive and took the initiative to obtain services from CAVAC and IVAC. [ 57 ] Both parents need to be made aware of the impact on children from exposure to conjugal violence. [ 58 ] The Court states the delegate in the orientation report to this effect: «For children, exposure to domestic violence does not only mean that they saw what happened; it also means that they heard, felt, and perceived the tension.

Such exposure causes inner tension, but kids do not have ways, other than crying, to solve the problem caused by adults around them. Exposure to domestic violence, or being victim of physical abuse, can have significant negative effects on different aspects of X’s development, such as: aggression, irritability, anxiety, dependence, using violence to solve conflicts, sleep disturbance, etc. Furthermore, X could be desensitized to danger. It is crucial that the situation be corrected right away. For X, her house should be the safest and calmest place. Mr.

B was always very calm and passive in our presence, but the mother, as well as other witnesses, gave us a different picture of him. He himself gave us a different picture of the mother, and we believe that yes, she may have lost patience with him, she may have tried to defend herself, or may have tried to take back control over her life. She was scared, angry, and hopeful that things would get better. She was a victim of domestic violence and was held in an unhealthy cycle she was not able to escape. » [ 59 ] It was observed that during contacts, X always cries intermittently for no apparent reason.

The father is adequate and tries different methods to try to calm the child but sometimes, to no avail.

[ 60 ] On March 19 th , 2020, the supervisor had to put an end to the father’s visit because X was inconsolable and asking for her mother. [ 61 ] The court stresses that it is quite possible that the child suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that the contacts with her father plunge her into memories of violent domestic quarrels. [ 62 ] This will need to be carefully monitored by the Director. [ 63 ] After this last visit, the pandemic measures had the effect to suspend the visits. [ 64 ] When the confinement was lifted, it was not possible to resume visits as the father was not communicating with the delegate to agree to a new schedule. [ 65 ] The father will now have to meet the delegate before contacts resume and he has to be transparent with the Director as to his situation. [ 66 ] When the visits resume, modalities of contacts with the father will have to be modulated according to the child’s reaction. [ 67 ] He must concentrate on the child when he sees her and not make disparaging remarks against the mother like he was observed to do during supervised visits. [ 68 ] He will have to attend visits regularly.

He had missed a few before and was often late. [ 69 ] The father will also have to work on his relationship with the child. Essentially, he has to make X feel safe again in his presence. [ 70 ] Indeed, the evidence revealed that the father’s relationship with Y is different from the one he has with X.

From the start, he says, Y was " daddy’s " little girl. [ 71 ] With X, he mentions being uncomfortable and always having difficulty with her. [ 72 ] He must undertake a follow-up regarding his anger management issues and his violence. [ 73 ] But mostly, he must recognize his responsibility in the situation, admit that he needs help to deal with these issues and collaborate with the social follow-up. [ 74 ] Considering the child’s young age, her reactions to the supervised contacts, the suspension of visits for many months, the lack of recognition of the father about his issues and the work to be done to address them, the court finds that it is premature to authorize the lifting of the supervision. [ 75 ] As to the father’s request for the child to attend daycare, the Court cannot find in the evidence a justification for this order but underlines that it is always good for a child to attend daycare to enhance her global development and obtain social skills. [ 76 ] Considering the evidence, the court finds that the recommended measures are in the child’s best interest, except for some modalities regarding the visits and contacts with the father as previously mentionned.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger for the following reasons: - 38 e) 1) Physical abuse; - 38

c) Psychological ill-treatment; ENTRUSTS the child X to the mother; AUTHORIZES in the child favour, supervised contact with the father, under the condition that he participate to the social follow-up, namely that he participate to at least 2 meetings prior to any contact being organized with the child and these contacts are to occur only if the Director fells that they are in the child best interest; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth protection to suspend the father’s contact if they have started and that the Director considers they are detrimental to the child; ORDERS that the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered; ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year; ENTRUST the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out.

__________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e Claudel Vachon Counsel for the child M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the mother M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the father Date of written judgment : October 15, 2020 Last Exhibits deposed: D-4 and M-6