2020 QCCQ 8680, 2020 QCCQ 8680

Protection de la jeunesse — 206802 2020 QCCQ 8680 JN0409 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-009789-191 DATE : August 18, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE THIERRY NADON, Q.C.J. [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2016 Child-Defendant -and- A, Mother-Defendant -and- B, Father-Defendant J U D G E M E N T

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (hereinafter the Applicant or DYP) applies for protection of the child. She alleges that the child’s

[ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (hereinafter the Applicant or DYP) applies for protection of the child. She alleges that the child’s security and development are in danger because of psychological ill-treatment (38 c)) and a situation of serious risk of physical abuse (38

e) Youth Protection Act (hereinafter YPA). [ 2 ] The original Application was presented on December 12 th , 2019. In it, the applicant petitioned that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director and asked for other protective measures. [ 3 ] On December 13 th , 2019, Judge Hamel Q.C.J. ordered provisional measures. He entrusted the child to his grandmother. The case was set to proceed on February 11 th , 2020. [ 4 ] On February 11 th , 2020, the applicant asked for a postponement.

The Court granted it, maintained the measures and set the file to proceed on April 22 nd , 2020. [ 5 ] On April 6 th , 2020, Judge Moreau, Q.C.J. postponed the case to April 16 th in order to determine if the case could proceed as scheduled on April 22 nd because of the exceptional circumstances in relation to Covid-19. [ 6 ] On April 16 th , 2020, Judge Moreau, Q.C.J. cancelled the April 22 nd date and set the hearing before the undersigned for April 30 th , 2020. [ 7 ] The Application was heard on April 30 th , 2020.

On that date, the applicant modified its conclusions and asked that the child be entrusted to his mother. The case proceeded and the evidence was heard. [ 8 ] The case was continued to May 6 th , 2020. On that date, the parties agreed that the security and development of the child were in danger and suggested interim measures. [ 9 ] The Court declared that the security and development were in danger because of psychological ill-treatment and a situation of serious risk of physical abuse. It ordered interim measures. It entrusted the child to the mother.

The case was set to be continued on August 18 th , 2020. [ 10 ] On June 26 th , 2020, the applicant produced a modified Application for Protection and also asked for provisional measures. My colleague, Judge Hamel, Q.C.J., ordered provisional measures. [ 11 ] On August 18 th , 2020, the hearing resumed. The applicant produced modified conclusions and the parties consented to them. The parties also made admissions or ignored the allegations. The Child’s Evolution [ 12 ] The child is four years old. Sadly, he is caught in a constant and persistent conflict between his parents.

The parents do not seem to understand that their behaviour is putting the security and development of their child in danger. Furthermore, the father’s violent acts add a layer to this already concerning situation. [ 13 ] When the original Application was filed, the child was entrusted to the grandmother. There, according to the DYP, the child had been functioning well. The grandmother planned on leaving Canada to reside in another country.

Therefore, she will not be able to care for her grandchild. [ 14 ] In the first report dated February 10 th , 2020, the DYP suggested that the child be entrusted to foster care. [ 15 ] In the second report dated April 15 th , the improvements made by the mother made it change its position. We note that the visits of the mother with the child were positive. As for the visits with the father, they were problematic.

The conclusions were modified and the applicant asked that the child be entrusted to his mother. [ 16 ] Let us paint the picture of the situation in which this child is in. [ 17 ] When his parents were together as a couple, the mother endured physical abuse from the father. In the past, he has threatened to break the child’s neck if she ever left. She decided to end the relationship in December 2019. [ 18 ] From then on, there has been a serious conflict between the two. [ 19 ] The mother has a troubled past with respect to criminal activities and drug consumption.

It raises red flags as to her capacity to care for the child. [ 20 ] As for the father, he needs to get his life in order. In Court, the father has demonstrated impatient and borderline violent behaviour. [ 21 ] The evidence shows that the father lies and makes unfounded accusations, belittles, is aggressive towards the people involved and has serious difficulties containing himself in regards to what he tells his son. He spends time trying to find evidence against the mother instead of working on his own behaviour.

[ 22 ] The father has been insulting and demeaning towards the mother, the grandmother and even the child. « Cunt, white trash » etc. are some of the words that he uses. This has an impact on the child. An impact that cannot be diminished. When the father says those things, the child suffers. This is evidenced by the child’s reactions when he comes back from the visits with his father. [ 23 ] Furthermore, the father’s Facebook posts about his child could be said to violate the law. In spite of this, the Court finds that by reading the posts we sense the love for his child.

We also sense the hurt that the situation brings him. In the Court’s opinion, those are two valid reasons for him to get the help he is now getting. This will permit, the Court hopes, a better coparenting arrangement with the mother and thus be in the interest of his child. It will also permit him to be less angry at the DYP and more open to the help he needs. The Situation After the Interim Measures Were Ordered [ 24 ] As said previously, on May 6 th , 2020, the Court ordered interim measures to monitor the situation. To put it bluntly, it did not improve.

The child was only able to live a month of relative calm in the conflict between his parents. [ 25 ] Accusations on both sides, attempt to apply for family allowances by the father by lying on the status of the child with the intent to hurt the mother financially, change of behaviour of the child when returning from his father visits, volatile text messages sent to each other, allegations of violence from the father towards his girlfriend in front of the child are some of the events that occur. [ 26 ] The father is trying to set up the mother for a fall and contaminates the child’s mind by telling him, “to tell the judge that he wants to live with him”.

The mother, fearing the consequences, says hurtful things to the father. To add to this, the mother has stopped counselling. [ 27 ] The Director is of the opinion that the child “appears to be cared for, however his psychological needs continue to be affected by being in the middle of his parent’s conflict.” [ 28 ] Although the parties agree that the child should be entrusted to his mother, the Court remains cautiously optimistic. The mother’s improvements are recent, very recent. She used to see a therapist and was working on herself.

Unfortunately, she has stopped therapy. [ 29 ] The situation is dire, worrisome, unfortunate and hurtful for the child. The Court wishes that the parents will both come to their senses and put their child’s well-being first. As the DYP wrote, “X requires a stable, consistent, nurturing environment.” [ 30 ] The Court, after considering the whole of the evidence, the admissions and position of the parties conclude that it is in the interest of the child to render the following measures.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger for the following reasons: 38 c): psychological ill-treatment; 38 e) 2): serious risk of physical abuse; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be following agreement between the parties; if there is no agreement, that the contacts will occur each Friday, the father picking up the child at daycare, at 6:00 pm, and bring back the child at the Tim Hortons that the address is [...], by Sunday at 7:00 pm; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the paternal uncles, Mr.

C and Mr. D, are not to be present during the father’s contacts; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child refrain from denigrating directly and indirectly each other in the presence of the child; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child report at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, more specifically that they participate in a parenting program and follow all recommendations; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continues with the psychological support and follow all recommendations; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engages in psychological support and follow all recommendations; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

Signed on September 14 th , 2020 ________________________________ Thierry Nadon, J.C.Q. Mrs. Alexandra Provost Stagiaire for the DYP Mtre Kathleen O’Meara Attorney for the Child Mtre Nancy Côté Attorney for the mother Mtre Gabriel Meunier Attorney for the father Date of hearing : August 18 th , 2020