r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 20632

Protection de la jeunesse — 157878 2015 QCCQ 20632 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004267-129 760-41-004266-121 760-41-004268-127 DATE: August 10, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born [...], 2003 Y , born [...] Z , born [...], 2008 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions seeking the revision and extension of a Court decision concerning X, Y and Z born respectively on [...], 2003, [...], 2006 and [...], 2015. [ 2 ] In virtue of the preceding order dated September 10, 2014, the Court extends the application of protective measures for six months in reason of a situation of endangerment stemming from psychological ill-treatment.

Notably, the Court entrusts the children to their mother and structures their contacts with their father with supervision. [ 3 ] The motion cites that the situation of the children evolves positively, but only recently, considering the father’s initial refusal to participate in the intervention.

The Director recommends the pursuit of protective measures for 6 months with the removal of supervision as to the father’s contacts. [ 4 ] The parents consign their admissions and consent to the orientation, while adding their joint request that the children’s access to their father extend to include sleepovers. [ 5 ] X and Y, declare the same position as their parents as to the conclusions.

For Z, his attorney stipulates a legal mandate and consigns her agreement, in his best interests, to the orientation proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] Context [ 7 ] In the week following the last judgment, the caseworker meets with the parents to discuss the intervention plan.

The father refuses to neither participate in supervised visits with his children nor in the elaboration of an intervention plan, citing his disagreement with the protective measures, a position which concurs with his declarations before the Court. [ 8 ] Both parents sign authorizations permitting the Director to communicate with the children’s schools as well as with the various therapists offering services to the family. [ 9 ] The mother remains collaborative, yet it is necessary to remind her of the terms of the judgment regarding the children’s access

to their father, as she informs the caseworker of unsupervised telephone contacts. [ 10 ] Since the last judgment, the mother continues to minimize the impacts of the situation on her children and the need for the father to take responsibility and involve himself in the measures. She does, however, cooperate actively and remains receptive to the interventions of the caseworkers and the therapists in regards to her children’s needs. [ 11 ] In December, the father requests unsupervised visits with the children and to this end, meets with the caseworker.

Presented once again with the intervention plan put in place with the mother, he proceeds to rip it apart and throw it, which signals and end of the meeting. [ 12 ] The children function well under their mother’s care. Their father’s position results in the children have no contact with him until April 2015. They question their father’s absence and repeatedly state wishing to see him. [ 13 ] The family receives services through the Clinique de psychiatrie transculturelle .

The parents actively participate, although it is difficult to ascertain any substantial changes in the father’s perceptions. [ 14 ] The father renews his cooperation with the intervention as of April 2015, permitting an agreement as to his contacts respecting the terms of the last judgment. [ 15 ] On April 13 th , there is the first supervised contact with the children, at the Director’s offices. Until the end of May, the supervised contacts occur once a week in a neutral environment.

The children are happy to see their father and the contacts are positive. [ 16 ] The children integrate the family therapy in June and the parties declare its benefits. [ 17 ] Within the ongoing therapeutic process and in view of the recommendations of the psychological evaluation of the children, the therapists emit the opinion that it is now propitious to lift the supervision of the father’s contacts.

Consequently, as of June, the parties agree to ending supervision and progressively increasing the frequency and duration of the children’s contacts with their father. [ 18 ] In July 2015, both parents participate in the revision of the intervention plan, agreeing that the children see their father following a

schedule determined by them and communicated to the caseworkers on a weekly basis. The situation is progressing well and it is anticipated to integrate sleepovers. [ 19 ] The divorce proceedings are pending between the parents until spring, before the father’s refusal to participate in mediation and the mother’s wish to not force the issue. When the mediation process goes forth, an agreement intervenes in July 2015 (exhibit M-1).

The said agreement confirms the status quo as to custody and access rights, the parents agreeing to re-evaluate the whole once protective measures are no longer in application. [ 20 ] Analysis and decision [ 21 ] Although the parents live separately since 2013, the status of their relationship and its complexities remain an impediment to the clarification of their roles. It is only within the family therapy that it is possible to see a positive evolution.

As the parents commence co-parenting and both wish equal involvement, the Director’s involvement continues to be pertinent towards the goal of normalizing the family situation and ensuring that conflicts are dealt with in a serene and constructive manner, while minimizing the impacts on the children. [ 22 ] The pursuit of protection measures remains necessary in view of the history and recurrence of parental conflict and, more notably, of the father’s conformism and refusal to integrate his responsibility as to the situation of endangerment.

As such, the father’s staunch refusal to neither participate in the supervised visits nor cooperate in the protective measures for 6 months is certainly the reflection of the continued precariousness of the situation and the need to ensure that the children are no longer at risk. [ 23 ] The Court retains that safeguards remain necessary by way of protective measures and this, within the need to continue to offer services to the parents in order to ensure the integration of their comprehension of their children’s best interests to be kept at bay of parental conflict.

Although the evidence reflects that this process is underway, caution is still required. To this effect, the Court cites its previous determination concerning the father’s position: [32] In point of fact, the father’s testimony demonstrates that he makes no fundamental changes in his attitudes nor functioning and this, notwithstanding the application of various measures since 2012.

His participation in the measures to date is conformist, as he recognizes no responsibility in the situation of endangerment and continues to blame the mother and the Director of Youth Protection for keeping him from realizing his parental responsibilities.

Furthermore, this belief of victimization is now entrenched and constitutes an impediment to accompanying him towards the rehabilitation of his parental role. [ 24 ] Consequently, the extension of protective measures is in the children’s best interests. [ 25 ] As to the revision of the father’s contacts, the Court refers to the orientation put forth within the last judgment: [37] The supervision of the father’s contacts remains necessary in order to allow the children to invest in the therapeutic process and shield them from any further incidents of conflict.

Should the family evolve within this framework, and upon recommendations to this effect by the therapist, the Court permits that the parties revise the need for supervision by mutual agreement. [ 26 ] The evidence demonstrating this evolution, it is in the children’s best interests to proceed to normalizing the contacts with their father. [ 27 ] Therefore, after evaluating the evidence, the Court determines that the orientation put forth reflects the children’s best interests, while adding the obligation that the parents not discuss any Court proceedings with the children, except within the ongoing therapeutic

process. [ 28 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the re-amended motions for extension and revision of a Court order; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 31 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on September 10, 2014; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the children be upon agreement between the parties; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents not discuss any Court proceedings with the children save within the therapeutic sessions; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 38 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of six (6) months; [ 39 ] 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 Frédérique Dupuy Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: August 10, 2015