2018 QCCQ 20707, 2018 QCCQ 20707

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811501 2018 QCCQ 20707 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-031997-166 DATE : April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2000 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] In the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on April 20, 2017, declaring that the security and the development of the children Y, X and Z are endangered as a result of psychological ill-treatment, and entrusting them to the mother with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 2 ] The Director is alleging that the atmosphere in the home is stable since the father’s departure and the adolescents are doing well overall.

The father, however, continues to deny the difficulties previously identified and has failed to participate in therapy or anger management workshops in spite of his commitment to do so.

He has also ceased his collaboration with the social worker altogether. [ 3 ] As a result, the Director is of the opinion that the father has not sufficiently improved his personal difficulties to the point where a return to the family home can be envisioned. [ 4 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the adolescents remain in the care of their mother to the exclusion of the father for as long as deemed necessary by the treating professionals, along with the application of various corrective measures including a social follow-up for nine months. [ 5 ] The mother admits the allegations but is of the opinion that the father has changed and asks that he be allowed to return home. [ 6 ] The father considers that the social service intervention is neither necessary nor useful.

Furthermore, he considers that he does not require any kind of therapeutic intervention. He has no objection to the extension of the social follow-up with the family but advises that he will not participate. [ 7 ] The adolescents each admit the majority of the allegations and through their lawyer, express the desire to have the family reunified. The Situation [ 8 ] The adolescent’s evolution, including their academic progress, has been positive. All three describe the home environment as calm compared to when their father was present.

They receive consistent support from their mother and all of their needs are met. [ 9 ] Visits with the father have been regular and positive overall. He demonstrates a respectful and caring demeanor with his children and avoids discussing the mother. He participates in the financial obligations towards the adolescents, particularly regarding

their schooling. [ 10 ] It should be noted that at the initial hearing on the motion for protection, the father had admitted the physical altercations with the mother and had expressed a willingness to participate in therapy. [ 11 ] The father was initially referred to two different anger management programs. However, his persistent denial of any issues with the mother made his participation pointless and he was not accepted into the programs.

Despite his admissions in court, the father refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing, thereby dismissing the impact of his behaviour on the adolescent. [ 12 ] The social worker suggested a third reference to the […] program A. The father reacted in a fit of outrage, yelling that he didn’t need therapy and forbidding the worker from calling him. Since then, there has been no communication between them despite the latter’s multiple attempts to reach him. [ 13 ] Throughout the follow-up, mother has expressed ambivalence about the father’s return to the home.

Although the mother initially stated that his return was conditional on his participating in anger management therapy, she believes that the father has demonstrated a certain improvement despite the lack of services. She remains collaborative and agrees that the Director’s intervention continues to be required. [ 14 ] The mother testifies that the interactions with the father have improved.

However, the frequency and duration are limited to occasional phone conversations or brief contacts when the father collects the adolescents. [ 15 ] The adolescents have a similar view regarding their father and point out that he behaves more respectfully than before. In their opinion, he has developed a better understanding of the situation and has shown remorse. They also would like to see him return home as quickly as possible. Analysis and Conclusion [ 16 ] The father’s lack of cooperation regarding the anger management sessions is particularly concerning in light of his prior commitment to participate.

His denial of the basic factual elements justifying the Director’s initial intervention demonstrates a complete absence of introspection and reflection. [ 17 ] A return to the family home in these circumstances would be ill-advised, mainly because his relationship with the mother has undergone little if any substantial change as a result of their limited contact. [ 18 ] As much as the adolescents miss their father, the Court cannot ignore the impact of his previous behaviour in the family home, an issue which has yet to be addressed.

His lack of cooperation throughout the past year perpetuates the risk of violent behaviour on his part should he return. The family is no more equipped to deal with the potential conflicts now than they were then. Their perception that their father has sufficiently changed lacks any solid foundation. [ 19 ] The father’s refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing leads the Court to conclude that in all likelihood, past conflicts will quickly resurface.

In these circumstances, the risk is unmanageable. [ 20 ] After considering all of the evidence, and taking into account the consent of the parties, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the adolescent’s best interest. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 22 ] THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent continue to be endangered; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to the care of the mother to the exclusion of the father for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP in consultation with other treating professionals; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director regarding the measures taken to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents and the adolescent take active participation in the measures ordered; [ 28 ] PROHIBITS the parents from exposing the adolescent to verbal or physical violence; [ 29 ] PROHIBITS the parents from denigrating each other in the adolescent’s presence; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in anger management therapy or any other services suggested by the Director; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain access to information regarding the father’s participation in therapy; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 34 ] THE WHOLE until majority. SIGNED IN TOWN A On May 10, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q . Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the D.Y.P. Suzy-Anne Bouveret Attorney for the adolescent Maïa Sureau Attorney for the mother Richard Brunet Attorney for the father Date of hearing: April 30, 2018 KO/lf