2022 QCCQ 11835, 2022 QCCQ 11835

Protection de la jeunesse — 226906 2022 QCCQ 11835 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N o : 455-41-001330-208 455-41-001331-206 DATE: September 30, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2017 Y Born on […], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; Applicant -and- A Children’s mother -and- B Children’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting for the revision of the Court order rendered on February 18, 2021. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the children X and Y still in danger for the motive of psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the children to their mother, she authorized, supervised contacts with their father by a third party determined by the Director of youth Protection and upon the modalities determined by the DYP, she authorized the lifting of the supervision if the situation allowed and ordered various other measures including a social follow-up for one year. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the children X and Y are still in danger for the same motive. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrust the children to their mother, authorize contacts with their father, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director, but that they be supervised by a third party determined by the Director in the situation of Y. [ 6 ] She also recommends that the exchange of the children from one parent to the other be under the care of a neutral party and to orders various other measures including a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 7 ] At the hearing on September 30, 2022, the mother is present and not represented by a lawyer.

She agrees with the

recommended measures. [ 8 ] The father is present and represented by his lawyer. He agrees with the recommended measures but has questions about the plan for contacts with Y. [ 9 ] X’s lawyer says she is also in agreement with the recommendations, adding that X is a happy child.

But after hearing the evidence, more particularly the father’s testimony ad considering the child’s age, she feels that the contacts with her young client should be supervised. [ 10 ] Y’ lawyer reminds the court that the file did not get settled with an agreement because her client wanted her contacts with her father to be reduced. [ 11 ] In fact, Y claims that her father still speaks about her mother during the contacts and that there is always negative stuff said. [ 12 ] Nevertheless, she is now in agreement and asks that the contacts be for a couple of hours every other weekend.

She says it all right to augment them gradually. Question in litigation [ 13 ] Should the contacts with the father remain supervised and what should be the other modalities for each child? Evolution of the situation [ 14 ] Since the last court order, Y (11) and X (5) continued to live with their mother and have regular contacts with their father. [ 15 ] X made a smooth integration into pre-kindergarten. She is developing well. [ 16 ] Y has made significant improvements in her academics.

She likes school and can now affirm herself in a healthy way. [ 17 ] She has access to the school’s psychologist if she needs to talk. [ 18 ] Their situation has improved but remains fragile. [ 19 ] The mother is working full-time now and no longer receives welfare benefits. [ 20 ] She has showed capacities to respond the children’s needs in terms of safety and development. [ 21 ] The mother also shows good will to work with the father to parent the children but does not appreciate subtle comments from him denigrating her during the meetings. [ 22 ] The father returned to school in the fall of 2021 and studies full-time in a technical program. [ 23 ] He is busy all the time and puts his focus on the children and his homework. [ 24 ] He continues his follow up with his psychologist for his obsessional compulsive disorder and his anxiety and takes the prescribed medication. [ 25 ] The father’s situation had evolved positively enough to allow the lifting of the supervision of the contacts. [ 26 ] However, both parents remained suspicious of each other’s parental capacities. [ 27 ] The father seems overly concerned about the mother and believes the Director is missing some observations pertaining to her, especially regarding her drug use.

The paternal grandmother often expresses the same concerns around the same time and states she is able to care for the children if need be. [ 28 ] Nonetheless, the delegate’s observations did not support the father’s allegations. [ 29 ] In December 2021, an incident occurred between the father and the paternal grandmother where they had a huge argument in the car in the presence of the children. [ 30 ] Y also reported that her paternal grandmother compares her to her father when she is mad at her which made her very sad. [ 31 ] After this, she was not inclined to go back to her father’s home and needed reassurance that those situations would not reoccur. [ 32 ] Aside form this isolated incident, the observations and information from the children demonstrated that the contacts with the children were going well to the point where in December 2021, a sleepover was added to the weekend with the father. [ 33 ] The father was always prepared for the visits and able to work with the mother for the organization of the visits and exchange of the children. [ 34 ] The mother recognized that the girls needed to spend more time with their father. [ 35 ] Both parents collaborate well with the services but still need to be supported to be more objective and reasonable in their thinking before jumping to conclusions. [ 36 ] The aspect of communication between them has not improved considering the unsuccessful meetings with the delegate to

discuss their worries. [ 37 ] In July 2022, Y’s contacts with her father became difficult and a source of stress for both. [ 38 ] During the weekend of July 10 th , the father was inappropriate towards Y on when she challenged his authority. According to Y, her father kicked her in the buttocks when he asked her to get out of the pool. [ 39 ] She said her father gave her a time out in the car. Y was mad and gave her father the middle finger.

The child said her father grabbed her hand and held it tight which hurt because he would not let it go. [ 40 ] Y spoke to her grandparents about this and they told her to bring it to their attention next time if she needed their support. The grandparents told us in front of Y that she was being very disrespectful of her father’s authority and was acting like a brat that day. [ 41 ] An evaluation was done pertaining to physical abuse but was not retained. [ 42 ] Since that time, Y asked not to see her father or be left alone with him.

The grandparents offered to accompany Y for father/child visits should she changed her mind. [ 43 ] The child also mentioned that her father made fun of her mother when she told him that she should open a bakery with Y and that it hurt her feelings. [ 44 ] Before this event, there had been some tension between Y and her father as he took her Nintendo switch away from her and would not give it back. [ 45 ] Recently there was a similar event and Y threw a fit over the switch game.

The father used words as “calm down little girl” which were perceived by the child as demeaning. [ 46 ] In September, the Director became concerned about the father’s mental health as he left an excessive number of telephone messages during the weekends to rant about the mother. [ 47 ] In some of those messages he insinuated that the mother was sexually abusing X and went so far as to state that he thinks his daughter is being sodomized by her mother. [ 48 ] In other messages, he screamed into the phone saying the Director was not offering a follow-up for the children. [ 49 ] When confronted about those messages the father admitted he was merely speculating and was repeating what had been reported to the Director two years ago.

He apologized for some of the comments and blamed some of them on his OCD. [ 50 ] The delegate suggested he contact his psychologist for a consultation which he did not yet follow up on. [ 51 ] During his testimony the father’s speech was incoherent and he still refers to his allegations of sexual abuse by the mother. [ 52 ] The Director is now recommending that the contacts between Y and her father be supervised. [ 53 ] The delegate plans on accompanying Y after school for a couple of hours with the father to work on the relationship an appease the tension.

These should occur elsewhere than at the father’s home because Y is obsessed with the Nintendo Switch when she is there. [ 54 ] The mother explains that this game is Y’s relaxation tool and that she tried to replace it by another mean to no avail. [ 55 ] After a few contacts the Director will accept that the grandfather supervises them. [ 56 ] As for the relationship between the parents there are some ups and downs but they showed they were able to take a step back. [ 57 ] The mother must work on tightening up the routine which is particularly irritating for the father. analysis [ 58 ] The Court is seized of a revision application and then main discussion is about the modalities for the contacts between the children and their father. [ 59 ] Even though from the get-go the parties were in agreement with the recommendations of the Director to have only Y’s contacts with her father supervised, the court now is of the opinion that it should be so for both children. [ 60 ] The father’s testimony is concerning and even alarming. [ 61 ] In fact, when reading the decision of February 18, 2021, the Court finds the situation quite the same about the father: “[…] [14] On August 12, 2020, the Director retained a new report regarding a situation of psychological ill-treatment.

The father then stated that the mother was mentally instable, irritable, aggressive and non predictable. […] [21] During the month of October (2020), the father alleged that the mother was sexually abuse (sic) Y.

[22] These allegations were investigated and deemed unfounded. [23] The father also alleged that the children were physically abused by the mother.

These allegations were also not founded. [24] The father maintained a discourse that the mother was not mentally fit to care for her children. [25] The mother’s doctor denied any such situation about her patient. [26] Even the doctor’s opinion could not appease the father. […] [31] The delegate had also received many phone calls from the father related to situations and worries regarding the mother that were not founded or that had already been discussed with the delegate. [32] The father said that the delegate and the doctor are manipulated by the mother. [35] Supervised contacts between the children and the father were authorized pending his mental health’s evaluation. […] [37] Following the provisional hearing, the father did consult with the doctor about his mental state. [38] The doctor said he was not completely disconnected with reality but that he was irrational. […] [42] The father also has been consulting with his psychologist.

She mentions that he is obsessed with his issues with the mother and his worries for the children in her care. […]” [ 62 ] The Court finds that the father’s testimony is exactly the same speech that he had when the last order was rendered. [ 63 ] In fact, he has this discourse since the beginning of the Director’s implication in 2020. [ 64 ] As nothing has changed in this regard, the court finds that all contacts between the father and both children should be supervised. [ 65 ] The situation does not allow for lifting the supervision either.

A demonstration that the father’s mental health is really under control must be made to the court before so. [ 66 ] Having read the reports and heard the testimonies, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation partially gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application with some modifications; DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are still in danger on the grounds of psychological ill-treatment ; REVISES the Court order rendered on February 18, 2021 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; AUTHORIZES, in X’s favor, supervised contacts with her father, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES, in Y’s favor, supervised contacts with her father, by a third party determined by the Director of Youth Protection, according to the modalities set by the Director ; TAKES NOTICE of the father undertaking not to make any derogative comments about the mother in front of the children; RECOMMEND S that the exchange of the children from one parent to the other be under the care of a neutral party; ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; ORDERS that the parents take an active and honest

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely the social follow-up; ORDERS that a person working for an establishment or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out;

PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Andreanne Lacasse Counsel for the DYP M e Ysabelle Proulx Counsel for X M e Karyn Brown Counsel for Y M e Mireille Leblanc Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 30, 2022 Deposited exhibits: D-6 and D-7