2023 QCCQ 8346, 2023 QCCQ 8346

Protection de la jeunesse — 232330 2023 QCCQ 8346 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 505-41-009971-203 DATE: June 1 st , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANNICK BERGERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] 2010 Child [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of the Youth Protection A Applicant and B and C Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 YPA) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The four children are currently living with their maternal grandmother and his partner since the last court order in April 2022. Y spent some time in their previous foster family following a provisional court order right after the decision. They felt comfortable enough to go live with their grandmother and siblings during the summer of 2022.

Provisional measures were ordered to that effect. [ 2 ] On June 6, 2022, The Court rendered provisional measures to forbid the contacts between the children and their father because of the father’s impulsivity and violence, his disrespect of court order and his inappropriate behavior in front of children. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) is presenting an application for revision and extension of a court decision. The Director is recommending that the children be maintained in the kinship foster family of their maternal grandmother and her partner.

It also recommends forbidding the contacts between the children and their father. The Director suggests that the contacts between the children and the mother be according to an agreement between the mother, children, and Director. It recommends that the mother be entitled to sign all parental authorizations at the exclusion of the father. Finally, the Director is suggesting various other measures and recommendations such as limiting the possibility for the father to go on the premises of the Director’s offices without being invited and to be forbidden contacting the foster family.

All measures are suggested for a duration of one year. [ 4 ] The mother is accepting all recommendations. [ 5 ] The father is contesting the recommendations. He wants the children back to his care. Alternatively, he would accept supervised contacts, but with another organization such as [organization A], without suggesting a specific English-speaking organization. He is contesting the recommendation regarding parental authority. Finally, he would like to be able to communicate directly with the foster family and the caseworker. [ 6 ] There are four children. The eldest is Y. Y uses the pronouns “they” and “them”.

They are fifteen years old. Y wants to be entrusted to their father. They were put on honor roll at school and are doing well academically. They report having trouble sleeping and eating at their grandmother’s home. They miss their father a lot. [ 7 ] X is now thirteen years old. He wants to be entrusted to his father. He wants to continue the contacts with his mother. X was having difficulty to understand why he could not see his dad after the provisional measures forbidding visitations. He misses his father a lot and would like to have contacts with him. [ 8 ] Z is nine years old. He is more open and outgoing.

The youngest is A, who just turned seven. He participated in art therapy.

Both children are doing well at school. Both appreciate the contacts and activities with their mother. [ 9 ] The attorney representing the two youngest children is acting according to a legal mandate. After hearing the evidence, she agrees with most of the Director’s recommendations notably that the children remain entrusted to the grandmother’s foster family for the next year. However, she believes that a period of nine months for the suspension of contacts with the father would be more appropriate than a duration of one year.

She also agrees that the mother should sign the authorizations with regards to travel since the evidence demonstrates that the father will not authorize the children to travel abroad. [ 10 ] The hearing took place on different dates. At first, hearing was scheduled on September 7, 2022. At this date, the father’s lawyer ceased to represent him, and the hearing was postponed allowing father to found proper counsel. Court hearing was scheduled on January 12 and the hearing continued and ended on April 6, 2023.

At that moment, the Court took the case under advisement. [ 11 ] FIRST MATTER IN DISPUTE AND ANSWER: Are the parents ready to provide a nurturing and stable living environment to the four children on a full-time basis? [ 12 ] The parents still have work to accomplish before reaching that goal. The mother has taken promising steps. The father has not changed his attitude and actions, but his openness to participate to a follow-up with a worker brings hope for the future. The children receive diligent care with their grandmother. They will be maintained with her for the next year.

The contacts of children with the mother will be determined at the exclusion of the father since he does not see any improvement in her situation despite the unambiguous evidence. Situation of the mother [ 13 ] The mother has worked hard to re-establish a relationship with the children. She is present at the contacts and makes activities with them. During the Holidays, Y has accepted that their mother be at the grandparents’ house. Their relationship is slowly improving, although Y does not see her as a parental figure.

Y is not hostile towards her. [ 14 ] The mother has obtained proper lodging in the community and is planning to move with her partner as of May 1st. She has remained sober. She is meeting regularly with her addiction worker. She attends school in a professional program and is doing well. Her plan is to regain custody in a gradual matter with the support of the maternal grandmother. [ 15 ] The mother does not denigrate the father. She expresses that the children do miss him. She is worried that the father talks bad about her and the maternal family.

She is relieved that the children are no longer isolated. [ 16 ] Despite the evidence that demonstrates the efforts and accomplishment by the mother, the father does not believe that she has changed. Situation of the father [ 17 ] The father has yet to work on his issues with tangible results. His violence, lack of insight and impulsivity led to a suspension of contacts almost a year ago.

He needs to take steps to stabilize his situation before assuming his parental role. [ 18 ] The father has not had contacts with the children for one year now, with the exceptions of unauthorized contacts in violation of the court order. The father is blaming Y for such contacts, stating he would not ask his child to leave the house since they are in distress. X has also participated to those unauthorized contacts at the father’s house.

Since the unauthorized contacts are taking place, Y’s attitude towards the grandmother has evolved negatively. [ 19 ] The father and Y attempted to demonstrate that the grandmother is an alcoholic. She admits drinking on Friday nights with her 71- and 64-year-old sisters, while playing radio-bingo in her garage. During that time, her partner is in the house to supervise the children. She is admitting drinking 5 or 6 beers at that time. [ 20 ] The father testifies about the drinking habits of the grandmother.

He claims that “she could keep Labatt and Molson going for a hundred years”. [ 21 ] Y visits their father on a regular basis despite the clear Court order forbidding such contacts, about fifteen times according to his own testimony. Their brother X went with them a few times. Both know that it is forbidden and do not care about lying to social services and their grandmother. Y explained missing their father and that his food is better than the grandmother’s. They insist on demonstrating that the grandmother consumes a lot of alcohol.

They took pictures of the content of the refrigerators in the kitchen and in the garage that their attorney filed in the court record. We can see cans of beers, as well as other drinks and food. [ 22 ] Y ran away from the grandmother following conflicts with her. The grandmother was tired and got impatient with regards to the cleaning of the house when she got back from work. It took a while before finding Y’s whereabouts. Their father pays for their cell phone. Therefore, the grandmother and social services are not allowed to have their number since the father is refusing.

When Y came back, a meeting took place at the grandmother’s house with social services. The history of the familial situation and the involvement of social services was explained to Y, as well as their father’s shortcomings in an objective way, adapted to their age and situation. The caseworker opened the refrigerator to inquire as to whether Y’s worries about alcohol were justified. The grandmother was reminded to be cautious and not raise her voice as Y is sensitive.

When the meeting ended, Y felt comfortable staying there. [ 23 ] The Court needs to assess credibility regarding the testimonies of Y, the father, and the grandmother, and whether her consumption of alcohol is problematic. The grandmother is employed. She is a member of the community, and her home was assessed

by social services to become a kinship foster family. She has opened her home and her refrigerator on many occasions to reassure social services with regards to the father’s allegations. The father has failed to demonstrate that the grandmother has an alcohol addiction. The grandmother rendered a clear testimony without avoiding any questions regarding her consumption habits. The father has made the choice to be completely sober. However, he cannot impose his choice on the grandmother.

Someone could consume alcohol on a regular basis without having an addiction. [ 24 ] It is worth noting that Y’s bad comments about the grandmother started when unauthorized contacts with the father took place. The father is still contaminating his child despite strict measures of control. He needs to improve his parental sensitivity and empathy. Y confirms that their dad mentioned not wanting to go to the restaurant A because they hired their mother.

This is an example of the father denigrating the mother despite a clear court order aiming at protecting the children against his denigrating speech. [ 25 ] The father has obtained medical records for the children. He filed them to try to demonstrate that the grandmother omitted to take care of the children. The Court does not see anything worrisome with regards to medical follow-ups. Recently, the grandmother took Z to the hospital when he had trouble with his asthma. The grandmother is doing follow-up with school, social services and attend Court hearing.

She provides a roof, food, and nurturing environment for her grandchildren. [ 26 ] The grandmother admitted disrespecting the court order by allowing the mother to be present during Thanksgiving dinner. She regrets not respecting the order and was sensitive and apologetical when reminded by social services. She insists that the mother was not left alone with the children at any time but agrees that it was a mistake. [ 27 ] As mentioned in the last court order, the kinship family of the grandmother assures that the children, of Mohawk culture and background, be maintained within their community [1] .

The parents being incapable of assuming their parental role, it is in the best interest of children to remain in the grandmother’s foster home. [ 28 ] The refusal by the father to see and accept the improvement of the mother is worrisome for the future. The mother’s project to regain custody of the children is realistic should she continue to maintain stability and sobriety. It is in the best interest of the children to increase the length of time spent with their mother. The father will not be part of the agreement for the contacts of the mother with the children.

Risks are great that he will object, forcing the parties to undergo long proceedings and therefore causing delays in normalizing the family situation to the best benefit of the children. Obviously, the children being a party, it is crucial to respect their rhythm and desire. [ 29 ] SECOND MATTER IN DISPUTE AND ANSWER: Should the contacts with the father be forbidden and for which duration? [ 30 ] The father needs to work on his issues to prevent the children from the exposition to his violence and denigration of maternal family prior to resuming the contacts.

Since the father has started taking steps and is open to involve his worker to gain better communication with social services, the measure regarding the suspension of contacts will last nine months. [ 31 ] The father’s attorney argued that the Court should give the father hope by allowing him contacts with his children. He also mentioned that the father’s impulsive behaviors would be caused by the effect of a condition of diabetes. Such a fact was not brought in the evidence despite the numerous assessments undergone by the father. The father’s shortcomings are recurring, as demonstrated below.

Disrespect of Court orders [ 32 ] The father has broken the court order, as well as the previous one on numerous occasions. He does not assume responsibility for his own actions. The reasons leading to the suspension of contacts in last June were the following: the father’s impulsivity and violence, his disrespect of court order and his inappropriate behavior in front of children. [ 33 ] The father lacked sensitivity when he chose to send a taxi to retrieve Y from school after the last court order was communicated. Y was placed in a traumatic situation that lasted long hours, involving the Peacekeepers.

On June 6, the father did not respect his words with the Court and was at his house when Y went to retrieve their belongings. [ 34 ] The father did not respect the court order regarding the posts on social media. [ 35 ] The father is admitting breaking the court order. His attorney even filed pictures of Y wrapping Christmas presents at his house, as well as a short video of them at the father’s home [2] . The denigration of maternal family [ 36 ] On May 17, 2022, the children had a contact with their father. A caseaid supervised them and Ms. [Social Worker 2], parenting worker, was also present.

Despite the presence of the two workers, father made negative comments towards social services, the grandmother, and the foster family to whom Y was then entrusted. [ 37 ] The father is still making inappropriate social media post about the maternal family and social services despite the clear recommendations.

The father has not denied making the posts. [ 38 ] The Court mentioned earlier an example of the father talking negatively about the mother during unauthorized contact with Y. [ 39 ] The father is convinced that the maternal family will kidnap the children should they be allowed to travel to the United States. He does not accept to be reassured. [ 40 ] The father spent an important amount of energy trying to demonstrate the inadequacy of the maternal milieu instead of focusing on his own issues.

Level of danger and hostile attitude during contacts [ 41 ] On May 25, 2022, the father implied that he would harm the clinical supervisor with a gun. He mentioned it to Mr. [Social Worker 3], his traditional worker and Ms. [Social Worker 2], Parenting support worker [3] . [ 42 ] The father underwent an assessment concerning his level of danger. Although the assessment completed concludes that the danger risk is moderate [4] , it also stresses that “caution should be exercised regarding the reoccurrence of inappropriate behaviors and continued hostile attitude by the client” [5] .

It explains that the father displays narcissistic, paranoid, and antisocial personality traits. [ 43 ] Another assessment made by Wendy Lewis, psychologist expressed that the father told her that he was not there on a voluntary basis, but for her to tell social services he is ok to have his kids back. The psychologist mentioned that the father has limited introspective abilities, denial, anger, rigidity, and defensiveness, as well as tendency to blame others [6] . [ 44 ] At the beginning of January, the father was verbally abusive with the social worker when she went to his home to get Y’s jacket.

He also aggressively grabbed the envelope containing cards for the children when she told him that she must check its content. He then proceeded to rip it and shove it to the worker’s face. Lack of involvement with services [ 45 ] The father claims he ignores what to change to get his children back. The Court’s expectation with regards to the father were clear in the last court order [7] . The father claims having not received services from Community Services A (“Community Services A”) in the past. The caseworker has listed the services offered in one of her court reports [8] . The following is a

summary of such services: The father was offered services as a young adult for issues regarding childhood abuse but stopped after one consultation. Community Services A provided the services of traditional workers Mr. [Social Worker 3] and Ms. [Social Worker 2]. The father refused psychological services in November 2021. Community Services A provided psychotherapist Caroline Foster from September 2029 to September 2021. Community Services A provided transportation for the child while the father could attend the Center A for parenting support. The father was referred to Clinic A.

Such services were paid by Community Services A, and it provided transportation to the father. The father was also referred to Addiction Response Services for Entourage Support and Psychological services. [ 46 ] The Court also notes that an important number of assessments was conducted to gain a better understanding of the father’s issues. Despite the recommendations in the previous court order, the father did not follow recommendations. The services were and are still available. [ 47 ] The father has started working on himself with his own worker, Ms. [Social Worker 4], as of the beginning of January.

However, his attitude with maternal family, social services and the Court has not changed yet. He still blames others for the present situation. His worker testified on his behalf. She explained that the father attends weekly meetings with her. She is teaching him techniques to manage heavy emotions. He his learning ways to cope with grief and loss. Conclusions on suspension of contacts [ 48 ] The Court is sensitive to the argument that the children should not be punished for the behaviors of a parent.

However, it is impossible to organize contacts in a way that children will be preserved considering the lack of insight of the father. The father must modify his speech and actions. The contacts should not be a reward to encourage the father in his steps. He needs to work on himself to ensure that the contacts go well, that the children are not exposed to his violence and speech against maternal family. It is crucial to avoid another suspension of contacts when they resume, which would be traumatic for the children.

The situation should not be different for the older children, despite their disrespect of court order. They are vulnerable to their father’s speech, as demonstrated by Y’s change of attitude towards the grandmother. [ 49 ] A therapeutical process takes time. The Court is encouraging the father to continue meeting with his worker, whom he trusts.

Since [Social Worker 4] has already worked for Community Services A, she could be a significant help to accompany the father with his communications with social services. [ 50 ] Since not much progress has taken place since the last Court order, the recommendation is understandable. The Court agrees that the children should remain with the grandparents for the next year. However, a period of nine months could be sufficient to resume supervised contacts between the children and their father, especially with the support of his worker.

However, such contacts must be supervised by social services, and not another organization, for the same reasons as mentioned in the previous Court order [9] .

Section 11 of An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families [10] provides that child and family services to an indigenous child must be provided in a manner that takes into account the child’s needs and culture. [ 51 ] The father needs to put his pride aside and accept help. He needs to take care of himself. It is his first step in resuming his parental role. The plan is clear, and he needs to adhere for the best interest of all the four children.

The Court certainly encourages him to do so. [ 52 ] THIRD MATTER IN DISPUTE AND ANSWER: Should the mother be entitled to sign all parental authorization at the exclusion of the father? [ 53 ] The mother will be allowed to sign the authorization regarding extracurricular activities as well as travel and obtention of a passport since the fathers’ refusal was unreasonable and not based on the children best interest. [ 54 ] The father did not agree to send the kids to day camp, alleging worries about their health due to Covid [11] . During his testimony, he claims that he did not refuse.

However, his ambivalence caused one of the events which ended in the contacts being halted at the beginning of June. The father’s then lawyer was even involved as per the father’s conversation with Ms. [Social Worker 2]. The father is worried about Covid and had been using this argument to refuse contacts with the mother in the past. The father is worried about various events and activities, and it is difficult to reassure him. For instance, he did not want the children to participate to a Christmas

event on the basis that there would be alcohol for the adults. His refusal was not justified, and the children have the right to participate to activities with their peers. [ 55 ] The grandmother would have liked to bring the kids to Plattsburgh for Spring Break. The father is refusing that the children go to the United States. He claims that he maternal family all help each other, and he will never see his children if they are allowed to go across the border. [ 56 ] The refusal of the father is unreasonable.

It is in the best interest of children to benefit from activities and trips to spend quality time with their caregivers and extended family. Therefore, the mother will be allowed to sign the authorization for passport and travelling purpose at the exclusion of the father, as well as recreational and extracurricular activities such as camp. Since there is no evidence of undue refusal with regards to medical and school, the father will be remaining a part of such decisions. CONCLUSION [ 57 ] The Director had to change caseworkers many times due to the father’s insults, assaults, or violent behaviors.

The father faces criminal charges against previous caseworkers. For that reason, the clinical supervisor Mr. [Social Worker 5] is always present during the interactions with the father, including meeting in presence or phone conversations. The father continues to display violent and sexual remarks towards the supervisor, in front of him, at court and on social media. This ongoing situation justifies the conclusion related to forbidding the father to communicate directly or indirectly with employees of the DYP except to the designated worker or her superior.

However, the Court decides that the conclusions regarding the confidentiality of the workers involved is not justified. This conclusion does not increase the security of the workers, especially in such a small community. However, the father is not allowed to go to the foster family house. Such a measure ensures the security and the serenity of the children and is in accordance with the conclusion related to contacts. Should the grandmother need help, she will call first respondents, not the father.

For the same reason, any news from the children will be transmitted to the father by social services. [ 58 ] The Court encourages the parents to maintain their efforts to regain a more active role in the children’s’ lives. The children should have the right to maintain a positive relationship with both their paternal and maternal family, in a secure and nurturing environment that encourages their development.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 59 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 60 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger. [ 61 ] REVISES ET EXTENDS the Court order rendered on April 27, 2022; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the children Y, X, Z and A be entrusted to the kinship foster family of their maternal grandmother Ms. E and her partner Mr.

F for a period of one year; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be upon agreement between the mother, the Director and the children concerning the terms, frequency and degree of supervision required; [ 64 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother meet with a Community Services A addiction’s response worker on a regular basis and follows recommendations; [ 65 ] FORBIDS the contacts between the children and their father, except for written letters and gifts that could be exchanges under the supervision of the caseworker, for a duration of nine months; [ 66 ] At the expiration of this period of nine months: ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be supervised a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and upon agreement between the parties, if there are no other agreement, the contacts will take place at the place designated by the Director and the contacts will take place once every two weeks for a duration of one hour and a half (1h30) ; [ 67 ] RECOMMENDS that the father follows recommendations of the assessments completed by both Dr.

Vaillancourt (August 8, 2022) and Dr.

Ravart (April 19, 2021); [ 68 ] ORDERS that the father does not denigrate the mother or the maternal family directly or indirectly; [ 69 ] ORDERS that the father does not broadcast or mention his children’s names or situation to people who are not party to the file and social media; [ 70 ] FORBIDS the father to communicate directly or indirectly with employees of the Director of Youth Protection except the designated worker and her superior; [ 71 ] FORBIDS the father to present himself at any offices or establishment of the Director of Youth Protection except with the written confirmation by the designated worker or her superior; [ 72 ] FORBIDS the father to communicate with the foster family and to present himself at their home ; [ 73 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children is in danger; [ 74 ] ORDERS that the children and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered;

[ 75 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family; [ 76 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the father and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign alone the authorizations required for recreational, extracurricular and travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 77 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the four children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 78 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year, except for the measure regarding the contacts with the father; __________________________________ ANNICK BERGERON, J.C.Q.

M e Adrienne Fournier-Sirois Attorney for the Applicant M e Kelly Ann Sinnett Attorney for the child Y M e Julie Tremblay Attorney for the child X M e Nancy Côté Attorney for the children Z and A M e Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the mother M e Simon Richter Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: January 12 and April 6, 2023