2019 QCCQ 19312, 2019 QCCQ 19312

Protection de la jeunesse — 197866 2019 QCCQ 19312 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001179-183; 455-41-001180-181 DATE: October 22, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2009 Y Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A Applicant -and- A -and- B Children’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court order rendered on November 9 th , 2019 in the present file. [ 2 ] By this decision, the Tribunal declared that the security and development of X and Y were in danger for educational and physical neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Tribunal entrusted the children to their father, authorized contacts with their mother upon agreement and according to the modalities agreed with the Director, taking notice that if there is no agreement, they’ll be three out of four weekends, and ordered a social follow-up, the whole until June 30, 2019; [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger for the same motives. [ 5 ] Due to the new facts alleged by the Director, she recommends that the protective measures be revised so that the Court orders that the children remain entrusted to their father, that contacts with their mother be supervised by the Director or by a person she designates if deemed necessary and to authorize the lifting of the supervision if the situation allows.

[ 6 ] The Director also recommends that the Court take judicial notice of the parents’ commitment to refrain from exposing the children to their conflict, recommends that the parents find ways to establish a functional and respectful communication and that the mother seeks a psychological evaluation and follow-up if deemed necessary. Finally, she proposes a social follow-up, for a period of one year. Question in litigation [ 7 ] What should be the frequency and modalities of contacts between the mother and the children?

Evolution of the situation up until the interim order [ 8 ] At the hearing held on July 23 rd , 2019, both parents are present and individually represented by attorney. [ 9 ] The mother disagrees with the Director’s recommendations of the Director as she requests shared custody of the children. [ 10 ] The father supports the recommendations although he asks that the contacts with the mother be supervised as of now. [ 11 ] The children’s lawyer expresses her clients’ need for quality time with their mother.

She denounces the fact that when the children are at their mother’s they mostly spend time with their grandparents while starving for their mother’s time and attention. [ 12 ] The Tribunal finds that the situation has not evolved since the last court order. [ 13 ] The relationship between the parents remains very conflictual and the children continue to be exposed directly or indirectly to their conflict. [ 14 ] The mother still does not collaborate and disrespects the modalities of contacts. [ 15 ] The mother still does not respect boundaries with her children and tells them adult information that sometimes pertains to issues that concern their relationship with their father. [ 16 ] The mother is not doing well and still making decisions that show her lack of judgment, like asking her new boyfriend to move in with her and exposing the children to his presence.

At another time, she got Y (12 years old) tattooed without telling the father, asking her daughter to keep it a secret. [ 17 ] The father is then distrustful of the mother and over protective of his children. [ 18 ] As the mother is agreeing to be psychologically assessed, the Court renders an interim decision that include an order to proceed to this evaluation. [ 19 ] The security and development is declared still in danger and the children are entrusted to their father. [ 20 ] As for the contacts with the mother, the Court orders that they be modulated according to the mother’s availability so that when they are actualised she spends real time with her children. [ 21 ] The following hearing is set for October 22 nd 2019.

Evolution of the situation since the interim order [ 22 ] On that date, the mother is absent and her lawyer has tried to obtain her mandate to no avail.

Her absence and lack of communication with her lawyer tells it all. [ 23 ] The father insists to be consulted about lifting the supervision if it is considered by the Director. [ 24 ] Since the last Court order, the mother did not follow through with being psychologically assessed. [ 25 ] After claiming she did not understand why she needed to be assessed, she pretended contacting therapists and then the CSSS, fiddling around the Director’s delegate. [ 26 ] So the Court is not the wiser about the mother’s condition. [ 27 ] Furthermore, her collaboration with the social follow-up is vanishing. [ 28 ] The calendar of contacts has been modified to conform to the last order.

The contacts are now set to take place every other weekend, when the mother does not work. [ 29 ] The mother has generally been respectful of the new modalities and was mostly punctual. [ 30 ] When visiting, the children saw two of their mother’s male friends living at her place, one of which has his room right next to Y’s. [ 31 ] Her boyfriend is also living there and the children witnessed a few rows between them. [ 32 ] There were issues around the children’s birthday. After promising to call them on that day, she was one day late to call X and never did call Y.

[ 33 ] But she did hold a party for her 12 year old daughter, where there was a lot of alcohol consumption and suspicions of Y having tequila shots. Her father claims she was sick for 2 days after this. [ 34 ] The problem of the mother not being available when the children are with her is unsolved. When they are there, she sleeps a lot and does no activities with them. [ 35 ] So, although they see her often, the children still miss their mother.

Their needs and expectations are not met. [ 36 ] The Director and the Court have tried everything to mobilize the mother to no avail. [ 37 ] So, the contacts must now be supervised. This is not agreeable for the children, but there is no other choice. [ 38 ] Y suggests that the supervision be done by the paternal grand-father. The Court understands that the Director will explore this idea. [ 39 ] In the meantime, the children’s other needs are met at their father’s care. [ 40 ] Y has made important improvement in her academic performances.

She has an active social life and has had some boyfriends. [ 41 ] When one of them cheated on her she had suicidal ideations and the father took appropriate steps for her to receive services from community resources. [ 42 ] She now has a weekly follow-up with CALACS which seems to have a positive effect of the girl’s mood. [ 43 ] She still feels stuck between her parents and having to take sides. [ 44 ] As for X, he participated in different activities offered by the social pediatric center A. [ 45 ] He has improved his school attendance and is doing well in the modified program to help him catch up on his academics. [ 46 ] He gained weight since he has been entrusted to his father and has caught up on his developmental scale. [ 47 ] The Court hopes that at some point the mother will realize that her inaction is pulling her away from her children who desperately need her to mobilize herself.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT : GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on November 9, 2019 in the present file; ENTRUST the children X and Y to their father; AUTHORIZE , in favour of the children X and Y, contacts with their mother, to be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection or a person designated by the Director of Youth Protection, if deemed necessary, according to the modalities set by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZE the lift of the said supervision if the situation allows it; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parent’s commitment to refrain from exposing the children to their conflict; RECOMMENDS that the parents find ways to establish a functional and respectful communication; RECOMMENDS that the mother seeks a psychological evaluation and follow-up if deemed necessary; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; ORDERS that a person, working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family, for a period of one year; 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 Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e Ysabelle Proulx Counsel for the children

M e Valérie Boucher Counsel for the mother M e Xavier Bertrand Counsel for the father Date of written judgment : November 5, 2019