2017 QCCQ 1279, 2017 QCCQ 1279

Protection de la jeunesse — 17363 2017 QCCQ 1279 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division » N° : 525-41-031729-163 DATE : January 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2008 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 January 9, 2017. Introduction [ 2 ] On March 11, 2016, the parents signed an Agreement on Voluntary Measures recognizing that the child had been exposed to frequent verbal violence and that X and Y were subjected to inappropriate forms of physical discipline by both parents. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the family’s situation has improved to a certain degree.

The Director alleges that the mother collaborated actively but that the father has not addressed his issues regarding conjugal violence and physical discipline. [ 4 ] The Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the mother’s care, that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director and that support measures be provided to the family for a period of 9 months. [ 5 ] The mother is in agreement with the proposed plan. [ 6 ] The father would like the Court to arrange for the child’s “shared custody” between the parents.

If a social follow-up is necessary, the father would prefer that the measures be ordered for a period of four months. Question in litigation [ 7 ] What measures should be rendered in order to correct the situation of compromission? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] X and Y reported having witnessed verbal arguments between the parents. [ 9 ] On November 28, 2015, the police were called to intervene. During a dispute, the father made threats to knock out the mother’s teeth.

The children were present during this incident. [ 10 ] The father admitted that the children were exposed to frequent verbal altercations between the parents.

[ 11 ] Regarding the use of inappropriate discipline, during the evaluation of the signalement, X reported the following: • When he does not listen, his father frequently hits him very hard on the back of his head; • His father occasionally kicks him on his buttocks; • His father hits him with slippers or his grey/green shoe; • His father also made threats to hit him with his black belt; • His father frequently kicks Y hard on her buttocks. [ 12 ] During the evaluation of the signalement, Y reported the following: • When she does not listen, her mother has screamed at her and has hit her gently with her hand, her cellphone or her black pen; • Her father hits her very hard on her arms, hands, feet and shoulders with his hands or a slipper. [ 13 ] The mother acknowledged that, when the children misbehave, she used a belt to hit X and Y on their buttocks and/or the palm of their hands.

She also recognized using a cellphone or pen to gently tap the children on their hand. [ 14 ] The mother reported that she no longer use objects to physically discipline the children. She sends them to their room for a time- out, she removes privileges (television or toys) or she asks them to write a letter to apologize. [ 15 ] The mother reported an incident where the father kicked Y on her buttocks and other situations where he used a plastic slipper to hit the children. She also reported that, approximately once per month, the father would hit X hard on his head.

She finally reported that the father frequently yells at the children and uses denigrating terms (idiot) when speaking to X. [ 16 ] During the evaluation, the father reported that he never used any physical means of discipline on X or Y, except with a slap (not hard) on the arm or buttocks. He mentioned that he never used an object to hit the children and did not recall ever hitting X or Y on their heads. He denied ever kicking the children.

He mentioned that he rarely screams at the children. [ 17 ] Following the evaluation, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Court should have been seized as the father did not recognize essential facts related to the situation of compromission. [ 18 ] On March 11, 2016, the parents signed an Agreement on Voluntary Measures recognizing that the child had been exposed to frequent verbal violence and that X and Y were subjected to inappropriate forms of physical discipline by both parents.

This Agreement was in effect from March 11 to December 11, 2016. [ 19 ] In April 2016, the father’s restraining order was modified, permitting him to be in contact with the mother if she was the one initiating the contact. [ 20 ] During the Director’s involvement, since March 2016, the family’s situation stabilized. In September 2016, Z integrated daycare with no difficulty. She is meeting all of her developmental milestone. X and Y continued to attend A School and meeting their academic expectation.

They also participated in A Community Resource for homework and after school programs. [ 21 ] The mother expresses concerns regarding the father’s capacity to ensure the children’s security alone. [ 22 ] The parents participated in mediation sessions. They still need to work on their communication. [ 23 ] The mother decided to drop the criminal charges against the father regarding the events of November 28, 2015. [ 24 ] At the hearing, the father testified to the effect that in his country of origin, the use of physical correction is permitted and that this is what he learned.

He mentioned that when he physically disciplined the children, it was because he loved them. He reported that, on occasions, he did use a slipper to hit X and Y. He does not remember ever hitting the children with his hands or kicking the children. [ 25 ] The father was not consistent with his scheduled visits as he was busy with his studies, with his job and the fact that he had to travel to [A Country]. [ 26 ] The father mentioned that he was always available to address his issues regarding conjugal violence and his use of physical discipline but that the services were never offered to him.

The youth protection worker testified to the effect that the father was referred to several services (CLSC and community organisation, parenting group within the CIUSSS) but that he did not mobilize and did not made himself available for such services. The result remains the same: The father has yet to address his issues regarding conjugal violence and the use of inappropriate physical discipline. [ 27 ] Before ever considering an eventual return of the child to the father, he needs to stabilize his own situation and to address his issues regarding conjugal violence and inappropriate physical discipline.

He needs to be consistent in his visits with the child. He needs to collaborate actively and with transparency with the youth protection worker. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is in danger ( sections 38

c) and e) 1 o of the Youth Protection Act );

[ 30 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 31 ] ORDERS that no means of physical discipline or verbal abuse be used on the child; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to all forms of verbal and physical violence including the use of threats; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ENCOURAGES the father to be consistent in terms of the visits; [ 35 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a therapeutic process to address his issues, attend a parenting group, address the issues in terms of conjugal violence and collaborate with the worker; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE for a period of seven months; [ 38 ] 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.

Signed on January 26, 2017 /cd Mtre Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Alec Fafard Counsel for the child Date of hearing: January 9, 2017