2017 QCCQ 9745, 2017 QCCQ 9745

Protection de la jeunesse — 174117 2017 QCCQ 9745 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 30797-161 Date: July 14, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Director of Youth Protection A filed an Amended Motion to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a fifteen month-old child, based on the psychological ill-treatment and risk of physical abuse to which he is exposed. [ 2 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated November 18, 2016 are as follows: 3.1. as background information, the mother is married to the baby’s putative father; 3.2. Mr.

B, the putative father, did not appear on the baby’s birth certificate form, according to the mother; 3.3. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his parent(

s) or a third person that could cause him harm and the parent(

s) fail(

s) to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; 3.4. the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury by his parent or another person and the parent(

s) fail(s)to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation; 3.5. Mr. B and the mother resided in Mr. B’s mother’s home until recently; 3.6. Mr. B’s behaviour towards the mother is controlling, abusive and volatile, more particularly but not restrictively, in that:

a) Mr. B yells at the mother in front of the baby, denigrates her and throws objects;

b) Mr. B has threatened to take the baby away from the mother and take him to Lebanon;

c) Mr. B threatens to kill himself if mother does not do what he wants; 3.7. there are concerns about Mr. B’s behaviour towards the baby, more particularly but not restrictively, in that:

a) Mr. B has grabbed the baby from the mother’s arms during a shuffle;

b) Mr. B loses patience when the baby cries;

c) Mr. B is not understanding of/or attentive to the baby’s needs and there are concerns with the way he physically handles the baby; 3.8. Mr. B presents as extremely self-centered, has no boundaries and is volatile; 3.9. Mr. B’s mother is also denigrating towards the mother, and there are concerns about risks of her abusiveness towards the baby as well; 3.10. the mother appears to be emotionally vulnerable and is easily manipulated by Mr. B; 3.11. on February 3 rd , 2016, the police was called to intervene in an incident of conjugal violence between the mother and Mr.

B, subsequent to which mother went to a shelter with the baby, as appears from the incident report filed as Exhibit D-2; 3.12. the mother is now in an apartment with the baby, for which Mr. B has offered to pay; 3.13. Mr.

B has indicated to the delegate that he is prepared to attend the McGill Domestic Violence Program (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 3 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The mother, assisted by Me LeRoy, expressed her consent to all the proposed measures and insisted on the continued need for supervision of contacts between the child and his father. [ 5 ] The father, whose paternity was established since the filing of the motion [1] was assisted by Me Breton.

He admits the parental conflict and resulting psychological ill-treatment. However, he denies any risk of physical abuse and agrees that the child be entrusted to his mother. However, he is opposed to supervision of his contacts with his son and would like contacts to be increased to eventually share the custody of his son. [ 6 ] Me Dubé-Laberge, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection.

However, after having heard all the evidence she argued that the Director has failed to establish a serious risk of physical abuse to the child by the father. She noted the evidence of the father’s progress since the end of the marital relationship and identified issues related to effective co-parenting by the parents as the major challenges that need to be met.

She recommended a gradual increase in contacts between father and child. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-13 as evidence. [ 8 ] The father filed Exhibits P-1 to P-11 as evidence, but withdrew Exhibit P-5. [ 9 ] The mother filed Exhibits M-1 to M-38 as evidence, but the Court refused to admit Exhibits M-4 and M-17, namely video recordings of the father’s parents taken on December 3, 2015. [ 10 ] The father objected to the production of the recordings of the father’s mother’s allegedly violent behavior towards her bedridden husband (the child’s paternal grandfather) who suffers from ALS. [ 11 ] The Director and mother deemed the evidence relevant as indicative of the climate in the family home and argued that the bedridden grandfather and the child present a similar degree of vulnerability. [ 12 ] Counsel for the child cautioned that the evidence should not be admitted. [ 13 ] The Court decided not to admit the evidence because the child was not directly involved in the alleged incidents nor was the child’s father, and there was no suggestion that the child’s maternal grandmother should supervise contacts between father and son as she is already devoting her time and energy to her role as her husband’s caregiver.

Consequently, the Court concluded that evidence of the grandmother’s behavior as her husband’s caregiver was not relevant to the father’s parental capacity and ability to care for and/or protect his son. [ 14 ] The parents met online in 2007 and married in 2012. The father is originally from Lebanon and emigrated to Canada with his family at the age of sixteen.

Since their marriage, the couple lived with the father’s family, in the basement of the family residence, until their separation, only three weeks after their son’s birth. [ 15 ] The child’s situation was signalled to the Director of Youth Protection in February 2016. The police were called to the couple’s home following an argument and the mother and child went to a women’s shelter. [ 16 ] In March 2016, mother and child moved into a new apartment rented by the father. He, however, failed to respect the mother’s boundaries and showed up intoxicated in the early hours of the morning.

He also sent innumerable text messages to the mother, alternately imploring and threatening her. [ 17 ] Between February and July 2016, the father successfully completed the treatment program for men at the McGill Domestic Violence Clinic where it was reportedly evident “that he made significant progress” [2] . [ 18 ] The parents both admit that the child’s security and development are in danger as a result of their ongoing conflict.

Consequently, the Director’s finding of psychological ill-treatment is supported by the evidence and acknowledged by all parties. [ 19 ] The issue in dispute is whether the child is also at risk of physical abuse by the father, as alleged by the Director and the mother, and whether supervision of the child’s contacts with the father remains necessary.

[ 20 ] The mother testified at length about the father’s controlling behavior and the reasons for which she finally decided to leave what she considered to be an abusive relationship, namely her desire to protect her son from the climate of fear and control created by the father. [ 21 ] Two evaluations were filed regarding the father, namely a Psychiatric Expertise , dated October 14, 2016 [3] , and a Parenting Capacity Assessment dated January 25, 2017 [4] . [ 22 ] Both raise serious concerns regarding the father’s ability to independently care for his son. [ 23 ] The Psychiatric Expertise concludes that the father “suffers from a set of personality trait disturbances in the narcissistic domain” [5] .

The author adds that such traits are “very common” and “less severe and invasive than a full-blown personality disorder, per se” [6] , a diagnosis that could only be confirmed or ruled out with further psychological testing. [ 24 ] The Expertise quotes the father extensively: “I am too much of a good guy and trusted my wife too many times but she always betrayed me. I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

She should worship the ground that I walk on, I am too good. […] My only flaw is being too good, too nice. […] If I had my child, I would be the perfect father, my parents were completely perfect, I envy myself for having such good parents. [7] [ 25 ] The Expertise concludes that the father: […] continues to show deficient emotional insight into having difficulties with his personal or parental adjustment. The dysfunctional personality traits outlined in this report have, and likely will continue to have, a detrimental effect on Mr.

B’s perception of himself and his interactions with others. [8] The following recommendations are made regarding the father’s contacts with his son: The report of Mr. B’s DYP worker indicates that his visitation with his son has been proceeding adequately and no major complaints or problems have arisen from the visits. I would recommend that the DYP continue to monitor Mr.

B’s interactions with his son and gradually increase his access to the boy predicated on his demonstrable parental capacities as determined by the DYP staff [9] (emphasis added). [ 26 ] The Parenting Capacity Assessment , completed three months later, shows similar findings: Testing material reveals an individual who has an important need to present well. The latter may have led to some problems not having been identified through testing procedures; this person being at risk of covering up significant symptoms.

Insight being little developed, the awareness of his emotional functioning is also assessed as being low. The results show evidence of significant personality dysfunctions. This person is described as preferring to stay alone and he may avoid the company of others as a way to protect himself. He tends to create difficult interpersonal relationships and have unrealistic expectations. He entertains an infallible perception of his abilities and rejects feedback of any limitations he could present. […] Anger and resentment is perceivable in this person.

Emotionally excitable and intense he is prone to present a high degree of agitation and be easily angered. At times, he can become resistant to persuasion, severely critical and prone to attack others. People and diverse contexts are perceived as the source of his problems, proclaiming his innocence. He is suspicious of ill intentions of others and perceives others to be against him. This person can be unwilling to self-examine his role in difficult situations or prolonged distress and he may react externally by behaving erratically.

Insight is minimally developed and reality testing can be altered in times of heightened stress level. Treatment is rejected other than an intervention aimed at providing information that does not question his abilities. [10] [ 27 ] More specifically, regarding the father’s parenting capacity, the Assessment indicates: Mr. B presents with mental health difficulties which nature is linked to a likely personality disorder. A psychiatric assessment completed with him identifies narcissistic personality traits. The latter is also confirmed in this assessment.

Testing and clinical impressions identifies personality dysfunctions which are significant (paranoid and compulsive personality traits) and narcissistic traits noticeable in the clinical presentation. Personality functioning shows rigidity. The mental health difficulties of this father have repercussions on his parental capacities. Capacities to manage stress are lowered. Impulse control and capacity to manage frustrations are low. Mr. B is prone to anger outbursts, and is not able to control himself, even when his child is present.

He is reactive emotionally and his impulsiveness can lead him to go against court measures if he doesn’t agree with them. He explained how he did not regret presenting himself to the home of the mother even though he was asked not to. His reflection to this day is the following: “Whether the law want me there or not, I will go”. [11] [ 28 ] Regarding the father’s ability to respond to his son’s emotional needs: The father is mainly self-centered and concerned with his rights. Mr. B has low empathy, which explains that he has difficulty to put himself in the place of others.

He is not able to understand the impact of the parental tensions on X, and how the latter has impacted his feeling of security. X is invested as a narcissistic extension of his father.

Mr. B is not sensitive to the impact of his negative discourse on the mother and the impact on his son. The father rejects the mother as being a competent parent, and the latter is done without supporting information. The father does not show to be able to control himself regarding his negative investment of the mother and it is improbable that he will be able to protect his son from it. [12] [ 29 ] Finally regarding his capacity for change: Judgment and insight are minimally developed. The father is open to receiving tips, as long as it doesn’t challenge him as a parent.

His potential for change is low and the prognostic is assessed as being poor. [13] [ 30 ] However, it must also be noted that the child is happy to see his father and that they are affectionate with each other. In addition, the father is visibly motivated to teach and stimulate his son. [ 31 ] The following recommendations are made: - Promote the father’s learning of the educational needs of his son with the completion of a parenting program; - The father is able to contribute to his son, and develop a bond with him.

However, his lack of discernment regarding the conflictual relation with the mother calls for this contact to be protected and supervised if deemed necessary. [14] [ 32 ] The evidence regarding the father’s controlling, denigrating and manipulative behavior towards the mother is overwhelming and the Court has no doubt that the relationship was psychologically abusive. [ 33 ] The mother’s testimony to that effect is credible and her allegations are consistent with the tone and content of the father’s numerous messages to the mother as well as his extremely critical statements about the mother during his parental capacity assessment [15] . [ 34 ] The Court finds the father’s mother’s testimony to the effect that the couple were “lovebirds” who enjoyed an ideal relationship to be totally contrived and unreliable.

In fact, the father’s mother claims to have treated the child’s mother like her own daughter yet has great difficulty ascribing a single quality to the child’s mother. She is clearly motivated to protect her son’s interests and the Court finds her account of events to be biased in her son’s favour and untrustworthy. [ 35 ] However, the evidence of physical abuse to the mother is far less clear.

She filed a photograph of scars on her arm allegedly taken one week after a fight with the father in July 2014 [16] . [ 36 ] However, the final dispute that triggered calls to the police by both parents on February 3, 2016 is described in the police report as not having involved any physical violence: Depuis le début de leur relation, B se montre très controllant et est agressif verbalement lorsque les deux se disputent. Il gesticule beaucoup et se montre menacant lors des querelles. Aujourd’hui, M. B s’est levé durant la nut (Vers 4h40) et voulait prendre le bébé qui était dans les bras de A.

Elle a refusé de lui donner alors monsieur s’est montré agressif et a insisté. Le conflit a alors dégénéré. Monsieur B menacait A qu’il allait faire en sorte qu’on lui enlève sa résidence permanance et qu’elle soit expulser du pays alors qu’il garderait la garde de l’enfant. Il continuait a insiter pour qu’elle lui donne l’enfant se montrant encore plus menacant envers elle et en gesticulant violemment ses mains. […] - Les deux partis sont calme a notre arrivée et sont interrogés séparément. Mme. A est très craintive .

Malgré qu’elle assure qu’il n’y a pas eu de voies de faits ni de menaces au sans du code criminel, elle dit craindre pour sa sécurité car elle se sent controllée et menacée par M. B . Elle craint également pour sa sécurité même si M. B quitte les lieux car sa belle-mère est également menacant à son endroit. Mme.

A veut la séparation [17] (reproduced with errors and/or omissions) (emphasis added). [ 37 ] The mother does not then refer to any past or recent incidents of physical aggression between the couple. [ 38 ] Moreover, in the Court Report , it is reported that the mother explicitly denied that the father was ever violent with her or their son: Ms. A was adamant that Mr. B has never been physical with her or X, but raised concern about Mr. B’s parenting ability. [18] There is no reference to the alleged incident of July 2014. In the Report, it is also added: During periods of conflict, Mr.

B has thrown objects, never at Ms. A (phone) and broken them. [19] [ 39 ] When questioned on the subject, the mother said it might have been a mistake, or that she thought the social worker meant on a daily basis. Her explanations in that regard are hardly convincing. [ 40 ] Finally, it is important to recall the Director’s findings in the Court Report : The concerns regarding physical abuse were not substantiated, however, given the conflict, the shoving between the couple, and the incident where police needed to be called, it is clear that X is at risk of becoming injured during conflicts . It is clear that Mr.

B shows no insight into the impact his behaviours have on X and limited insight into the on-going conflict between the couple. [20] [ 41 ] Consequently, given the evidence as a whole, the Court finds that there is a serious risk of neglect, rather than a serious risk of physical abuse to the child, in his father’s care stemming from the father’s difficulty in correctly identifying and responding to his son’s needs.

[ 42 ] It is not possible to infer from the psychological abuse to the mother a risk of physical abuse to the child, even if the mother’s fears may be completely sincere and even understandable. [ 43 ] There is no doubt that the father needs to further develop his parenting skills and increase his sensitivity to the child’s needs and reactions and learn to respond appropriately. [ 44 ] His insistence on having the child undergo a medical examination in the absence of any symptoms or other indication that the child required medical attention is a clear example of the father placing his own need to be reassured above the child’s needs. [ 45 ] The father’s behavior during the medical visit, as described by the nurse who was present, also illustrates the father’s insensitivity to the impact his tone and impatience can have on his son.

However, the incident does not show a risk of physical abuse as the father, although angry, chose to leave and returned the child to his mother’s arms. [ 46 ] Moreover, the father has fully collaborated in participating in the assessments that have been recommended as well as in an anger management program from which he learnt a great deal. [ 47 ] He also expresses his commitment to participating in parenting classes and any other services intended to improve his ability to care for his son’s needs.

He also claims to have an excellent relationship with the current social worker and is open to collaborating as fully as possible in his son’s interest. [ 48 ] His attitude appears to have changed significantly since the Director of Youth Protection’s initial involvement with the family, having finally accepted the end of the relationship with the mother and showing an increased ability to focus on his son. [ 49 ] He also took a co-parenting class and claims to want to learn to communicate effectively with the mother about their son. [ 50 ] A clear attachment between father and son has also been observed as has the father’s ability to contribute positively to his son’s development. [ 51 ] Consequently, the father will need to continue to work on developing his parenting skills so that his contacts with his son can gradually be increased and normalised and the mother’s fears diminished.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 52 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 53 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (

c) and 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 54 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the parents not be alone together in the presence of their child without the presence of a responsible third party; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by agreement between the parties and, in the absence of an agreement, that they be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the needs of the child, including supervision if necessary; [ 57 ] ORDERS that supervised contacts occur minimally once every two weeks for a period of four hours at a Canadian destination that is as close as possible to the child’s residence to avoid excessive travel for the child; [ 58 ] ORDERS that contacts occur once a week provided they can occur at no more than 90 minutes from the child’s residence; [ 59 ] ORDERS that contacts be encouraged and gradually be increased as soon as possible, as the father demonstrates an increased ability to care for and respond to his child’s needs; [ 60 ] ORDERS that contacts be increased to include a full day without supervision within three months provided the visits go well, the father is collaborative and no difficulties are reported and provided the father does not denigrate the mother in any way in the child’s presence; [ 61 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents participate in a co-parenting group to learn more effective means of communication; [ 62 ] RECOMMENDS that the father follow the recommendations of his parenting capacity assessment; [ 63 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive support services for victims of conjugal violence; [ 64 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and exchange relevant information with the father’s treating professionals regarding participation and attendance; [ 65 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 66 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 67 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Léandre Dubé-Laberge Attorney for the child Me Lisa LeRoy Attorney for the mother Me Josselin Breton Attorney for the father Hearing dates: April 15, November 28, 2016 and April 3, 21 and 24, 2017 TD/vl