2018 QCCQ 13895, 2018 QCCQ 13895

Protection de la jeunesse — 184278 2018 QCCQ 13895 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-033397-175 DATE : March 29, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2010 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on March 29, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the father is using inappropriate means of discipline with Y, Z and X. The Director also alleges that the father has been controlling and making denigrating comments towards the children. [ 3 ] On December 20, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the parents’ care. The Tribunal ordered that the parents not resort to use of physical discipline or threats towards the child.

The Tribunal ordered support measures on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] On February 19, 2018, during a meeting with the youth protection worker, C, the child’s sister, reported that she believed her parents understood the cultural aspect of physical discipline and what is expected of them. [ 5 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the parents’ care and that support measure be ordered for a period of nine months. [ 6 ] The father recognizes that he used inappropriate means of discipline with Z and Y but not with X.

The father does not recognize that the children were placed in a situation of psychological ill treatment. [ 7 ] The mother shares the same position as the father. [ 8 ] The child lawyer is of the opinion that the Director has met her burden of proof and that the proposed measures are in the child’s best interest. Questions in litigation [ 9 ] Is the security or development of the child compromised? [ 10 ] If so, under which

article of the Youth Protection Act ? [ 11 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 12 ] The parties agreed that if the children were to testify, they would essentially say what is mentioned in the Court report deposited as Exhibit D-2. [ 13 ] X, Z and Y report that the father is hitting them with an open hand approximately twice per month. [ 14 ] Y also mentions that his father has used a wooden spoon to hit him on occasion. [ 15 ] Z reports that her father stopped hitting her since October.

Z reports that her father has also hit her with rubber toys and threatened to use a spatula. [ 16 ] X gave examples of situations where her father would hit her: when she takes his phone or Ipad without permission. [ 17 ] The children’s credibility was not put in question. No rationale was presented to explain why the children made such comments. [ 18 ] Both parents recognized that the father has tapped or slapped Z and Y. This happened when the children were “ jumping around ”.

During his testimony, the father mentioned that he used this means of discipline once per month, during two, three or four months in the fall 2017. [ 19 ] The parents also admitted that, in November and December 2017, the father threatened Y, three or four times with a wooden spoon. [ 20 ] The parents reported that it does not happen anymore. They mentioned that they learned about discipline in Canada from speaking with the youth protection worker and with the father’s lawyer. They undertake, for the future, not to resort to physical means of discipline.

It remains unclear for the Tribunal as to how the parent will discipline the children if they were to misbehave. [ 21 ] The Director has not met her burden of proof regarding the alleged control of the father and the denigrating comments. [ 22 ] The cameras installed in the home’s living room and in the hallway are part of the security system put in place a few years ago.

They are in fact motion detectors. [ 23 ] Even if the parents believe that the Director’s involvement is no longer necessary as they have acknowledged the issues and were sensitized as to what is expected of them in terms of appropriate means of discipline, they agree to a period of social follow-up by the Director. The father does not see the relevance of following an anger management or parenting course. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 e) 1 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents not expose the child to any type of violence or excessive control; [ 27 ] ORDERS that therapeutic services be offered to the child if she wish to take

part in such confidential process; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on April 9, 2018 /cd Mtre Edith Zavodni Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Sylvie Piriou Counsel for the child Mtre Marc Morin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: March 29, 2018