2020 QCCQ 5969, 2020 QCCQ 5969

Protection de la jeunesse — 205767 2020 QCCQ 5969 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001206-184; 455-41-001207-182; 455-41-001203-181; DATE: October 26, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2011 Y Born on [...], 2007 Z Born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Children’s mother -and- B Children’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court orders rendered regarding the children. [ 2 ] On May 31st, 2019 the Court declared the security and development of the children in danger for the motives of physical abuse concerning Y and Z and for risk of physical abuse concerning X. [ 3 ] As protective measure, on May 31, 2019, the Court entrusted the children X and Y to their parents, ordered that the parents stop physically correcting the children, entrusted Z to a foster family, authorized a progressive return of the youth to his familial environment, authorized supervised contacts between Z and his parents, according to the modalities determined by the Director, authorized the lifting of the supervision if the situation allowed and ordered a social follow-up for the 3 children and their family for a

period of one year. [ 4 ] On October 31st, 2019, the Court revised this decision regarding Z, to entrust the youth to his parents and maintained all the other measures that were still applicable.) [ 5 ] On December 11 th , 2019, the Director seized the Court with yet another application for revision. [ 6 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director retained another motive of compromission for physical abuse regarding Y. [ 7 ] On December 12 th , the Court entrusted Y and X to a foster home on a provisional basis, while leaving Z with his parents. [ 8 ] Several events delayed the audition of this file (the delegate’s sick leave, the pandemic situation).

Some provisional measures were rendered in the meantime which will be further described. [ 9 ] The Court finally heard the evidence on the application in revision, on June 26 th , 2020 and pleadings on August 20, 2020. [ 10 ] The Director was recommending the following protective measures: maintain Z entrusted to his parents, entrust X and Y to a foster family, authorize during this period the progressive reintegration of X and Y to their parents’ care if the evolution of the situation allows it, authorize contact with the parents according to the modalities set by the Director, including the degree of supervision if requested, and order a social follow-up, the whole for a period of one year. [ 11 ] At the hearing of June 26, 2020, both parents were present and represented by the same lawyer. [ 12 ] The father was also present at the hearing on August 20, 2020, assisted by the lawyer representing him and the mother.

The mother could not be present on this date as she was at work. [ 13 ] The parents deny the new motive for physical abuse regarding Y, but affirm being willing to work with the Director. They want the children to return to the family home. [ 14 ] Z’s lawyer mention that the youth is in agreement with the Director’s recommendations for himself, but that he wishes for the family to be reunited home. [ 15 ] Y’s lawyer mentions that the child also wants to reintegrate his familial environment.

He wants to be heard so he can tell the Tribunal that there has been no physical abuse, recanting his previous declarations. [ 16 ] X’s lawyer mentions that the child wants to go back to her parents. She misses them. Her lawyer wonders whether the risk is sufficient not to return her client to her family environment.

Questions in litigation [ 17 ] Was there a new event of physical abuse in December 2019 against Y and is his security and development compromised because of it? [ 18 ] Is there any other motive of compromission regarding Y’s situation, pertaining to his relationship with his older brother Z? [ 19 ] Does the cultural characteristics of this situation have an impact as to the measures to be ordered? [ 20 ] Should Y and X return to their parents’ care?

The evolution of the situation of compromission [ 21 ] Since May 31 st , 2019, Y and X saw their brother Z, who at the time was in a foster home, during weekends at home. [ 22 ] In August 2019, Z had suicidal ideations after being the subject of great pressure to change his version of facts regarding physical abuse, as stated in the judgment of revision in his situation dated October 31, 2019: «[11] By the end of August 2019, Z was getting back from his parents visits apparently insecure, anxious and sad.

He was also disrespectful, verbally aggressive and had a general negative attitude towards the foster parents. [12] It appears that Z was growingly feeling responsible for his family’s faith in terms of immigration status.

He felt guilty about this situation and was particularly worried for his younger sister if they were to be deported to [continent A]. [13] By August 28, 2019, he was about to change his declaration and consulted with his attorney to be informed of the consequences. [14] The father went to the foster home and spoke with Z for about 15 minutes in his car. [15] After that, Z came back to the foster home particularly distraught and verbalized suicidal thoughts. [16] The Director invoked immediate protective measures and Z was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [17] When the parents came to visit their son at the centre in the days after, the father denied having seen his son at the foster home.

The parents were oppositional and defiant. « [18] On September 3, 2019, the Court reinstated supervised contacts with the parents on a provisional basis and set the hearing on October 31st, 2019.

[19] At the provisional hearing the father maintained his version of events, contradicting Z’s version and even though his meeting with his son was witnessed by the foster parents. » [1] [ 23 ] There was an enormous pressure on Z’s shoulder as the parents were going through the immigration process that would give them a status of permanent residency. [ 24 ] Z finally gave in and recanted his version despite having confirmed the contrary to the delegate in August 2019. [ 25 ] After this, the contacts between Z and his family were supervised until October 2019. [ 26 ] During these, the father was observed as playing games with his sons while X played with her toys and the mother would be occupied on her cell phone. [ 27 ] There was one particular family meeting where Y and X were not acting as usual.

The delegate observed that they were not smiling and X looked distressed and had tears in her eyes. She also seemed in pain when she was standing or sitting down. [ 28 ] But no further inquiries were made at that time. [ 29 ] On October 31 st , the Court returned Z home. [ 30 ] Early November, the delegate met with Y’s Art therapy worker at [Centre A]. She says that it was apparent that the boy had an important secret and demonstrated great loyalty towards his parents. After this, Y missed two Art therapy sessions.

The events of December 2019 and the motive of physical abuse regarding Y [ 31 ] From the start, the Court would like to state that the security and development of Y were already declared compromised for the motive of physical abuse, in the judgment rendered on May 31 st , 2019. [ 32 ] The Court is not in appeal of this decision that was based on the findings of the court at the time. [ 33 ] The Court is now invited to decide on yet another declaration of Y about him being subject of physical abuse. [ 34 ] On Thursday, December 5 th , 2019, the Director received a new report of physical abuse regarding Y. [ 35 ] The following narration is what the Court retains from the evidence that was presented by the parties. [ 36 ] On that day, Y came to his principal’s office at school and told her he was scared to go back home. [ 37 ] When asked the reason why, Y claimed that his mother had hit him on the back with a belt the night before (Wednesday, December 4 th ). [ 38 ] The Director was informed and a delegate came to meet Y at the principal’s office. [ 39 ] Y repeated to the delegate his declaration, said it happened because he had thrown Z’s phone to his face and showed where he was hit on the lower back. [ 40 ] The delegate was able to observe a mark, somewhere higher than where Y pointed. [ 41 ] Following this meeting, Z, who was at school at the time, came to join the delegate and Y. [ 42 ] Z was very upset.

He told the delegate that his brother was lying, that he was never hit and that Y only got his IPAD confiscated. [ 43 ] Z mentioned this after he had been in contact over the phone with his mother. [ 44 ] He added that Y had previously threatened his parents that he would tell the Director he was being beaten in order to get what he wanted. [ 45 ] The delegate then proceeded to transport the boys back to Town A. [ 46 ] Z received two phone calls from his parents on his cell phone. [ 47 ] Following these, Z got even more upset and became angry.

He was yelling aggressively at Y while hitting the passenger side dashboard of the car. [ 48 ] Z blamed Y for his declaration stating that he was lying and urging him to tell the truth. [ 49 ] He added regretting obeying his father and not having hit him himself. [ 50 ] This verbal abuse by Z went on all the way from Town B to Town A. [ 51 ] On the same day, Y was brought to the hospital. The doctor was not able to come to any conclusion regarding the mark on his back. [ 52 ] Y was then brought with X to a foster home as an immediate protective measure, while Z was isolated for one night at Town C

in order to calm down. [ 53 ] The very next day, Y was met by the police and completely recanted his declaration and said he had lied about being physically disciplined. [ 54 ] He said that the mark was from a fight with Z caused by a door handle during an altercation with his brother. [ 55 ] On December 6 th , the Court prolonged the immediate protective measures, entrusting all three children to a foster home. [ 56 ] The parents were met on the next Tuesday, December 10 th . The mother denied hitting Y.

She explained that Z and Y got into an argument about the PlayStation. [ 57 ] During their fight, Y threw Z’s phone at his face. [ 58 ] She states that the boys’ raised voices brought her to intervene. [ 59 ] She further mentions that she invited Z into her room to calm down and to call his father to reason him. [ 60 ] The father told Z that getting violent or angry was not resolving the situation. [ 61 ] The mother also says that Y had threatened to divulge being subject to physical abuse in order to avoid consequences for his misbehaviour. [ 62 ] She describes her younger son as impulsive and immature and that he had been seeking a lot of attention lately. [ 63 ] For example, she mentions that there had been an event this summer when Y touched X inappropriately.

The mother had to intervene, but said that this type of event did not occur again. [ 64 ] X was met by the social worker in charge of the social follow-up, Ms. [social worker 1]. [ 65 ] She said that what happened to Z (physical abuse while in Canada) was true. [ 66 ] But she also added that it was not true in regards to Y. [ 67 ] At the end of the extended immediate protective measures, the Director seized the Court for a provisional order to maintain all three children in a foster home. [ 68 ] On December 12 th , 2019, the Court decided to return Z home and keep Y and X entrusted to a foster home. [ 69 ] On December 16 th , the children were met again by Ms. [social worker 1]. [ 70 ] Y added some information to his declaration stating that on December 5 th , his mother had confiscated his tablet as a punishment, which was corroborated the mother’s version. [ 71 ] In Court, the mother basically sustained her version of the events adding a lot of specific information. [ 72 ] Z stated that Y had not been hit as he had not witness it and he was in the apartment at the time. [ 73 ] When Y testified, he sustained having lied to the Principal and to the delegate and that he was not hit by his mother. [ 74 ] The Court has to decide, on the balance of probabilities, if the spontaneous declaration of Y states the truth about him being hit by his mother on December 4 th , 2019, or if it was a lie in order to get attention and avoid consequence for his bad behaviour. [ 75 ] The Court finds that it is more probable that Y was hit by his mother than not and here is why. [ 76 ] The type of physical abuse revealed is similar to the events that led to the Directors’ involvement in 2018. [ 77 ] The mother’s, Z’s and Y’s narration of events are generally similar, the mother adding many details that seem to be quite clear in her memory of events that date from 6 months. [ 78 ] The main difference is that Y at the time said his mother used her belt to physically correct him in addition to confiscating his IPAD. [ 79 ] Although the Court believes that Y did indeed threaten to reveal he was being hit in order to avoid consequences for his behaviour and get his way, the Court does not believe the child would have followed through if it would not have been true. [ 80 ] The court recalls that when Z revealed he was the object of physical abuse, the family lived through traumatic events when they were afraid that their immigration status could be impacted by criminal proceedings. [ 81 ] The foster home placement of Z in 2018 also plunged the parents into great pain and sorrow. [ 82 ] Y was a witness to all these events.

He knew what he was getting into when he made his declaration to the Principal. [ 83 ] The Court believes that the situation came to such a point that Y felt he had to speak to protect himself.

[ 84 ] Furthermore, the fact that Y immediately recanted his declaration is consistent with the fact that Z was putting enormous pressure for him to say that it was a lie. Even Z’s friends participated to intimidate Y. [ 85 ] When Y testified, he tried to convince the Court that he lied because he was angry at Z and his mother and that he wanted to see how it was in a foster home. [ 86 ] The Court knows that the brothers have had many quarrels, that Z has been parenting/bossing his younger brother for a long time.

Thus it was not the first time that Y got angry at his brother. [ 87 ] But the Court does not believe it was sufficient reason for Y to reveal he was the subject of physical punishment. [ 88 ] In his testimony, Y says that everything he said, to the delegate and even to the foster parents, was a lie. [ 89 ] Actually, his whole testimony was about how everything was good at home and that his relationship with his brother was now all good, although the evidence and the history of the file is to the contrary. [ 90 ] He even denied that any physical punishment was inflicted to them after they got to Canada, although the Court had ruled differently on May 31 st , 2019. [ 91 ] The court finds that, with all the pressure from his family, it is not surprising that Y feels he has no choice but to say that he lied.

He even told the foster mother that he was scared of the consequences of his revelations. [ 92 ] The fact that X and Z may not have witnessed Y being hit by his mother, can be explained as they might not have been in the room when it happened. [ 93 ] This could make Z truly believe that his brother is lying. [ 94 ] But the extent of his anger, the fact that he does not give his brother the benefit of the doubt, troubles the Court. [ 95 ] It is also possible that Z knows about the event but that, considering the ordeal he himself has been through, wants his brother to keep silent. [ 96 ] And then, there his Y’s behavioural difficulties. [ 97 ] The parents confirm that Y was not doing well in school, misbehaving and being immature and impulsive. [ 98 ] This puts him more at risk of being physically punished. [ 99 ] Finally, there appears to be a law of silence where no one is to speak to the authorities about what happens in the family. [ 100 ] Indeed, when the delegates address the topic of educational methods with the children, their reactions are troubling. [ 101 ] On October 10 th , 2019, when asked what her parents do when they are not happy with her or Y’s behaviour, X becomes very stiff, looks straight in front of her and seems to be rehearsing her answer. [ 102 ] She says that her parents ask them to go to their room and read. [ 103 ] The same answer had been previously given by her older brothers during similar questioning. [ 104 ] X also avoids the question when asked what her parents can improve. [ 105 ] On the same day, Y would refuse to speak to delegate, looking around him with worry and saying that everything was fine. [ 106 ] All this leads the Court to conclude that Y was physically punished by his mother on December 4 th , 2019. [ 107 ] This points to the fact that the motive of physical abuse still remains unresolved.

The relationship between the two brothers and the parental attitude of Z; Psychological ill-treatment in the situation of Y [ 108 ] During the interview of December 16 th , 2019, Y explained that Z’s friends were mean to him and that they pushed him on the ground and scratched his face during physical education class because of his declaration. [ 109 ] Y also mentioned that his brother is begging him to come back home, but that he did not trust him. [ 110 ] The anger and rage of Z when he learned that his brother has made a declaration to his principal is without precedent from an older brother. [ 111 ] The school personnel and bus driver have observed how Z is often scolding his brother, talking to him in an angry tone and voice. [ 112 ] They observe that Y changed from a smiley and funny teenager to a silent one, always looking down in Z’s presence. [ 113 ] The schoolboard also took steps to have Y take a different school bus. [ 114 ] The foster parents where Y was residing also witnessed a fight between the two brothers that they had to separate.

[ 115 ] At some point, Z hit Y on the head with a calculator, hard enough for his brother to go back to the foster home with a headache. [ 116 ] Z’s testimony is also revealing about how much he takes on parental responsibilities regarding his siblings. [ 117 ] He is involved in every aspect of his siblings’ education.

He speaks to the teachers and is controlling their behaviours. [ 118 ] He is the one to suggest what to do when Y gets into trouble in school. [ 119 ] When confronted with the parental role that he takes, he is completely oblivious of the abnormality of his involvement in his siblings’ education. [ 120 ] He says about Y “I do not want him to go the wrong way” as if it was his responsibility to make it so. [ 121 ] He even seems to give advice to his own parents as to how to raise his brother and sister.

He says he is a third parent. [ 122 ] It is to a point where Z himself says he has difficulty concentrating in class because he is worried about his family. [ 123 ] Even his father has a hard time reasoning Z to let go and bring the situations to them. [ 124 ] The mother is not helping in denying that Z plays a parental role, especially when the father admits it. [ 125 ] When Y misbehaves, Z takes it upon himself to intervene and discipline his brother. [ 126 ] This situation had been ongoing for a long time. [ 127 ] Since the events of December 2019, the relationship between the boys has taken a turn for the worse. [ 128 ] The Court does not give much credit to the boys when they say that their relationship is all good now. [ 129 ] They are simply saying what they know needs to be said in order for the family to be reunited again. [ 130 ] The evidence shows that the father has given instruction to the mother and Z to call him when he gets angry at his brother. [ 131 ] The Court believes that the father has indeed intervened to calm Z down. [ 132 ] But there still remains the tolerance by the parents of the bossy parental attitude of Z towards his sibling. [ 133 ] Even though the Court asked the parents, it remains unclear if this type of attitude of the eldest child is cultural or particular to the personality of Z. [ 134 ] In January 2020, the delegate tried to address this situation with Z and the parents when Y was suspended from school for being suspected of having shared juvenile pornographic pictures (which in fact, he had not). [ 135 ] During that meeting, Z acted as if he was a third parent and it was clear that he would have corrected his sibling instead of reporting the misconduct to his parents. [ 136 ] The Youth Protection Act describes psychological ill-treatment in these terms: 38.

For the purposes of this Act, the security or development of a child is considered to be in danger if the child is abandoned, neglected, subjected to psychological ill-treatment or sexual or physical abuse, or if the child has serious behavioural disturbances. (…) ( c ) “psychological ill-treatment” refers to a situation in which a child is seriously or repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of the child’s parents or another person that could cause harm to the child, and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation .

Such behaviour includes in particular indifference, denigration, emotional rejection, excessive control , isolation, threats , exploitation, particularly if the child is forced to do work disproportionate to the child’s capacity, and exposure to conjugal or domestic violence; [2] (the underligned are ours) [ 137 ] The Court finds that Y is the subject of psychological ill-treatment because he is the subject of behaviours, such as denigration, emotional rejection, excessive control, and threats from his brother Z that cause him harm and that the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation.

The measures the evolution of the situation since Y and X’s placement [ 138 ] Since their placement, X and Y have been struggling with not being at home. [ 139 ] They do not appear to have permission to be at ease in their foster home. [ 140 ] Nonetheless, they developed a good relationship with the foster mother. [ 141 ] The Director kept contact with the children meeting them regularly.

[ 142 ] In the foster home, Y made additional and various revelations about the family situation. [ 143 ] He said that X was not wetting her bed anymore, as she was scared of the noises and the screaming at her parents’ home. [ 144 ] He also said that, at one time, his mother burned one of his hands and that it was Z who stopped her from doing the same on the second one, claiming it would leave marks. [ 145 ] Y also said that he would like to reveal other things to the foster mother, but that he was scared that she would share the information to the delegate and feared that his father would retaliate if he spoke up. [ 146 ] In March 2020, after a call from his father, Y had a crisis.

It seemed he was receiving some pressure as the father said that Y wanted to speak with his lawyer about him still being in the foster home. [ 147 ] As for X, when returning from her visits home with her mother, she started crying hysterically and theatrically.

Once arrived, she immediately dried her tears and stated being hungry. [ 148 ] The child later admitted being told to cry a lot to return home, stressing how she is also the object of pressure from the parents. [ 149 ] The parents continued to somewhat collaborate with the social follow-up, without recognizing the situation of compromisison. [ 150 ] As mentioned in the October 2019 Judgment, the parents had started obtaining services anyway: « [20] Nonetheless, during the months of September and October, the situation has much improved, despites the fact that, all through the meetings with the social worker, the parents never acknowledged having physically abused Z or his siblings. [21] The spectre of deportation was omnipresent and prevented the parents from recognizing the motive of compromission.

Also, the parents shared their history of hardship that explained how they lived in constant fear which prevents them sometime to be truthful towards authorities. [22] Generally, the parents collaborated with the Director in every meeting. The parents were receptive to the suggestion of receiving education in terms of the psychological effects of physical and psychological abuse on children and new methods in exercising their parental authority and communication. [23] They also started to involve themselves in parenting groups to improve their parenting skills namely at La Maison de la famille.

The session will begin in November 2019. [24] They allowed the Director to share information with their worker from La Maison de la famille. [25] They also sought help from [Centre A] and the CLSC. [26] Z will have a worker from [Centre A] to prevent suicidal ideation and help him cope with adolescent issues. [27] They also mention reading books about child rearing and child development. [28] They also involve their children in different cultural and sporting activities. » [3] [ 151 ] The Court then mentioned: [29] In the very special circumstances of this family, the Court considers the parents’ involvement in all these courses and activities as a form of recognition for physical abuse. [4] [ 152 ] But after the events of December 2019, the parents regressed in their recognition process, even denying all events that led to the declaration of compromission in May 2019.

Impact of the cultural characteristics in this situation [ 153 ] The Youth Protection Act contains a

section pertaining to General Principals and Children’s Rights. [ 154 ]

Section 2.4 (5)

b) states: “ 2.4. Every person having responsibilities towards a child under this Act, and every person called upon to make decisions with respect to a child under this Act shall, in their interventions, take into account the necessity (…) (5) of opting for measures, in respect of the child and the child’s parents, which allow action to be taken diligently to ensure the child’s protection, considering that a child’s perception of time differs from that of adults, and which take into consideration the following factors: (…) (

b) the characteristics of cultural communities; »

[ 155 ] The parents’ counsel invokes two jurisprudence cases, regarding situations of physical abuse in immigrant families. [ 156 ] In the decision rendered by Judge Éric Hamel [5] , the child was hit with a wooden spoon or a belt when he misbehaved. [ 157 ] The child presented with autism and ADHD.

He had behavioural issues and anxiety. [ 158 ] The parents denied the abuse. [ 159 ] They admitted being raised with physical punishment in [country A], but claimed not practicing such educational methods here in Canada. [ 160 ] Their immigration situation was delicate and could be compromised by criminal proceedings, like in the beginning of the present case. [ 161 ] Previous order had found that the security and development of the child was compromised for physical abuse. [ 162 ] Nonetheless, the parents were not recognizing the physical abuse on their child despite an ongoing social follow-up since 2010 (5 years). [ 163 ] The Court questioned how to make the situation evolve and what measures to order. [ 164 ] Based on the fact that the child was no longer afraid of his parents following numerous supervised visits, that despite their non- recognition of the facts, they had changed their approach and the family environment was more calm and appeasing for all, the Court maintained the first child in a rehabilitation center but returned the other child home [ 165 ] In the present file, distinctions must be made. [ 166 ] The evolution of the situation has not led to the appeasement of the situation at home.

On the contrary, further events shortly led to the revision of the order after having returned Z home. [ 167 ] In the other decision [6] , Judge Pierre Hamel was studying the application of the Director to prolong measures that kept children at home with a social follow-up while their security and development had been declared compromised for physical abuse. [ 168 ] The father was still not recognizing the facts that led to the Director’s involvement. [ 169 ] All this, despite the involvement of the Transcultural Clinic, an organisation that was supposed to help with cultural components of the situation. [ 170 ] In this case too, there had been no further reports of physical abuse by the school or the elder adult children who were ready and willing to reveal such events if they occurred. [ 171 ] Furthermore, the father had been charged and found guilty for the physical abuses and had served a probation order. [ 172 ] The Court went further to say that in such situation with a strong cultural and immigration component, the fact that there is no recognition is not per se a reason to maintain a social follow-up if the children are no longer the object of physical abuse and that there are protective factors in place to prevent recurrence. [ 173 ] Again, the present situation differs from that case in that there was further events of physical methods of punishment and so the situation of compromission is not resolved. [ 174 ] In other words, the cultural component could lead the Court to view differently the absence of recognition of a situation of compromission. [ 175 ] But the abuse has to have stopped and there has to be protective factors in place in order for the situation not to reproduce itself before sending the children back home. [ 176 ] When the Court rendered its decision on October 31 st , 2020, the situation appeared to be going the right way. [ 177 ] The parents were involved in different services and had obtained their permanent residency.

They were collaborating with the Director’s follow-up and open to receive advice about educational methods. [ 178 ] The evidence shows that further work needs to be done for the situation of compromission to be resolved. [ 179 ] In March 2020, when the Court had to postpone the case and render a provisional order, a return to parents’ care was considered by the Director because of this absence of recognition due to cultural aspect of the file. [ 180 ] After hearing the position of all the parties, the Court ruled to authorize a return home only if there was some kind of recognition by the parents of using physical correction, at least for the facts already ruled upon by the Court. [ 181 ] Unfortunately, this order came to no avail as the parents continued to deny any physical methods of punishment since they have been residing in Canada.

Necessity of placement for X and Y [ 182 ] In the situation of X, the child seems to have taken more assertion since she was placed in a foster home.

[ 183 ] Although it was never revealed that she had been the object of physical abuse, it cannot be ruled out and the evidence about the evolution of the family’s situation shows that she is still at risk of physical abuse. [ 184 ] Furthermore, even if X does not have the same explosive relationship with Z as Y has, she appears to be under her big brother’s control as well. [ 185 ] If X was to return home, she would not be at liberty to speak if something happened to her in terms of physical punishment.

There is no sufficient protective factors in place to send her back home. [ 186 ] Y’s situation is somewhat different. [ 187 ] Y has been exhibiting behavioural difficulties for some time. [ 188 ] Y is now having intense crises in the foster home. [ 189 ] His strained relationship with his brother who believes he can parent him, makes it impossible to have the two of them under the same roof until their relationship has improved and until Z let go of his parental role. [ 190 ] The Court believes Y when he says he wants to go home and misses his family.

But this cannot be at all cost. [ 191 ] At [Centre A] , he is already getting services: art therapy, psychological follow-up and child psychiatrist. [ 192 ] The later, Dr.

Rouleau, is recommending an evaluation for a possible ADHD. [ 193 ] The Court believes Y and his parents could benefit from an evaluation to further assess his needs and inquire about diagnosis and medication that could help him. [ 194 ] The parents need to agree for this evaluation to occur and be sensitized as to the condition of their child if and once is it diagnosed. [ 195 ] In any case, the parents must continue to learn how to deal with Y and how to control Z to make him back off from his brother. [ 196 ] In the current situation, Y’s difficulties may lead to further physical punishment, as the mother does not seem to recognize sufficiently that she must use other means of punishment, despite her affirmations to the Court. [ 197 ] As for the return home of both children, the Court agrees with the Director as expressed in his revision report: «Before youth protection can consider returning the children in the care of their parents, they would need to work on their parental abilities and would need to provide sincere and transparent collaboration.

Our recommendations will therefore be focused on ensuring that the parents mobilize themselves in this sense.» [ 198 ] This law of silence has to stop now if we want to reintegrate the children back home safely. [ 199 ] The parents must surpass their fear to allow the Director to help them further. [ 200 ] They already are accepting to meet with the delegates, receive services and accept advice in the education of children. [ 201 ] They must now take a step further and admit that sometimes they do resort to physical punishment because this is how they were taught how to raise children. [ 202 ] The Court will allow a reintegration of the children home during the present order if the situation evolves positively this way.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT : GRANTS the application; DECLARES that the security and development of the children Z, X and Y are still in danger and add a motive for Y, like so: For Z: - 38e) 1) Physical abuse; For Y: - 38e) 1) Physical abuse; - 38c) Psychological ill treatment; For X: - 38e) 2) Serious risk of physical abuse; REVISES the Court orders rendered on May 31 st , 2019 and October 31 st , 2020 in the present files; MAINTAINS Z entrusted to his parents;

MAINTAINS Y and X entrusted to a foster family designated by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZE Y and X’s reintegration to their parent’s care if and when the situation allows; AUTHORIZES , in Y and X’s favour, contacts with their parents, according to the modalities set by the Director of Youth Protection, including the degree of supervision if requested; ORDERS that the children and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures set forward by the Court, including that Z work on his relationship with his siblings and that the parents encourage Z not to take parental responsibilities towards his siblings; ORDER that Y receive all health and social services that he requires, namely a psychological evaluation; ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are in danger; ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A, or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children Z, X and Y and their family, for a period of one year; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children Z, X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e René Sévigny Counsel for the child Z M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the child X Me Ysabelle Proulx Counsel for the child Y M e Claudel Vachon Counsel for the parents Date of hearing : June 26, 2020 and August 20, 2020