2013 QCCQ 14524, 2013 QCCQ 14524

Protection de la jeunesse — 135147 2013 QCCQ 14524 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004457-134 DATE: June 12, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2011 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF CENTRE DE JEUENSSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the child X, born […] 2011. [ 2 ] The motion alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of psychological ill- treatment, as well as a serious risk of neglect.

The petitioner proposes the application of measures of protection for one year and more particularly, that the child remain with her mother and not be in the presence of both her parents simultaneously. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions and positions as to the measures in the Court file. The existence of a situation of serious risk of neglect is contentious.

As to the measures, the parents disagree that a third person is necessary to ensure the exchange of the child at the occasion of the father's contacts and, concurrently, submit that the child's interests justify a shorter order. [ 4 ] The attorney for the child suggests that the risk of neglect, although present, doesn't meet the required standard of the Youth Protection Act . She suggests that the evidence justifies that the Court limit the parent's interactions in the presence of their child, at the present time.

Furthermore, she pleads that the Court considers either an interim measure to further review the evolution of the situation, or a 6-month order. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] For the past four years, the parents maintain an unstable relationship, which is cyclically punctuated by separations and episodes of violence. They are the parents of one child, X, and both have children from previous unions.

The mother shares custody of three children and the father exercises regular contact with his son. [ 7 ] At the initial evaluation, the parents are recently separated and the child resides primarily with her mother. [ 8 ] The family dynamic is dysfunctional. Conflicts are regular and of increasing severity. The conjugal relationship is tenuous, with incidents of mutual denigration, yelling and occasional physical violence.

The relationship between the father and his stepson X is also highly conflictual. [ 9 ] The father demonstrates impulsivity and anger problems, which negatively impact his relationships with the various family members. His alcoholic consumption is also an issue, as he describes his drinking as being significant (4-12 beer daily), but not problematic. The Director demonstrates a similar pattern in the father's previous relationship, leading to criminal charges and conviction. [ 10 ] The father has little implication in the household responsibilities, the mother being the primary caregiver.

He considers having no role to play as to the mother's other children and admits finding it arduous to live in a reconstituted family. [ 11 ] The children are witness to the family difficulties and the stepsiblings isolate themselves from the father. They don't appreciate how he treats them, nor their mother. They further declare being happy that Mr. B is no longer present in the house. [ 12 ] On April 17 th , a physical altercation occurs between the parents and this, despite their declared separation. X is sleeping at the time.

Provisional measures ensue, entrusting the child to her maternal grandmother. [ 13 ] Although the father openly recognizes his personal difficulties, he mitigates their scope as well as his responsibility as to the present situation. [ 14 ] The mother presents a history of emotional dependency within her relationships, which impedes her capacity to adequately deal with ensuing unhealthy situations.

Although she aptly assumes her children's basic needs, she fails to give priority to their emotional security and development in allowing them to be witness to conjugal violence. [ 15 ] Since their separation, the father undertakes anger management therapy, as well as a follow-up for his alcohol dependency. The mother starts an individual follow-up with the CLSC. [ 16 ] The parents declare that they recognize the negative impact of their conflicts on their child and furthermore, that their separation denotes their determination to address their problems.

They consider their separation as a temporary respite, during which they want to engage in individual, couples and family therapy. They submit that the presence of a third person for the exchange of their child is not necessary, as their mutual realizations ensure that she will not be witness to any further conflicts nor tensions. [ 17 ] The Court determines the existence of a situation of psychological ill-treatment, stemming primarily from the parent's conflictual relationship.

The conjugal relationship is chronically conflictual and culminates to incidents of verbal and physical violence, creating the danger to the child's security and development. The parent's decision to continue their relationship, despite their separation, maintains the precariousness of the situation and the necessity to adopt protective measures for their child's well-being. [ 18 ] The Director set forth a situation of serious risk of neglect, stemming from the father's alcohol consumption and little implication as to his minor child.

Although the evidence certainly demonstrates reasons for concern, it fails to convince the Court that these concerns reach the degree of seriousness required by the Youth Protection Act . [ 19 ] The measures must reflect X's need to maintain significant relationships with both her parents and grow in calm and harmonious environments. The parent's implication in rehabilitative measures justify that the child return to the care of her mother.

[ 20 ] Furthermore, the Court considers that the child's interests and vulnerability dictate that the parents further their implications and demonstrate their mutual abilities to maintain a civil relationship.

Considering the child's young age and the parents showing good faith in their determination to address their difficulties, the Court orders measures for a period of 6 months. [ 21 ] At the present time, the Court considers that the child remains at risk in the joint presence of her parents, as their follow-ups are recent and do not, as yet, permit to show a clear resolution of their individual, and joint, problems.

Consequently, the Court concludes that for a three-month period, protective measures are necessary to shield the child from potential conflict. [ 22 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger regarding a situation of psychological ill-treatment; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and her parents for a period of 6 months; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be upon agreement between the parties and, for the next 3 months, that the exchange of the child be through a third party to be determined following between the parties; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents participated actively in the measures designed to put an end to the situation; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the visits between the father and the child be in the absence of the mother, for a period of 3 months; [ 30 ] TAKES ACT of the father's agreement to not consume any alcoholic beverages during his contacts; [ 31 ] TAKES ACT of the father's intention to actively pursue his follow-ups with group A and group B; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie La Roche Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 12, 2013