2016 QCCQ 9995, 2016 QCCQ 9995

Protection de la jeunesse — 164101 2016 QCCQ 9995 JL4320 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division » N os : 450-41-005743-167 450-41-005744-165 450-41-005745-162 DATE : JULY 13 th 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : HONOURABLE MONIQUE LAVALLÉE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF * : X, born on [...] 2013 and Y born on [...]2011 and Z born on [...] 2007 -et- [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A, working at [...], Town A, district A, Applicant , -and-

B , [...], Town B (Québec) district A, Father of X and Y and C , [...], Town C (Québec) district A, [...], Father for Z and D , [...], Town B (Québec) district A, [...] Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP or Director) is asking the Court to declare that the security or the development of X and Y, aged three and four years old, and of Z, aged eight years old, is in danger for reasons of physical abuse (unreasonable educative practices) by their mother concerning X and Y, of serious risk of physical abuse concerning Z and of educative neglect by their mother concerning all three children. [ 2 ] On February 29 th 2016, a provisional Court order was rendered by which the children were entrusted to their respective fathers and supervised contacts with their mother were authorized. [ 3 ] Today, the DYP is requesting that the Court entrust the children to their respective fathers, authorize contacts with their mother after agreement with the Director and order a social follow up and various other measures for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The Court held a joint hearing for all three children with the consent of all parties. [ 5 ] In support of his applications, the DYP filed exhibits D-1 to D-4.

The court heard the testimonies of the DYP delegate, X and Y’s father and the children’s mother. [ 6 ] Z’s father, Mr. C, is present at the hearing and is not represented by counsel. He has read the various reports filed as evidence and is in agreement with their content and with the Director’s recommendations. [ 7 ] X and Y’s father, Mr. B and the children’s mother are also present at the hearing and each is represented by an attorney. [ 8 ] Mr.

B consents to the filing of the various exhibits and to the measures requested by the DYP. [ 9 ] The children’s mother consents to the filing of the various exhibits but is not in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. She is asking that the Court order shared custody of the children by their parents. [ 10 ] After hearing all the evidence, the children’s attorney agrees with the DYP’s recommendations. [ 11 ] At the end of the hearing which was held on May 25 th 2016, the Court took the case under advisement.

The facts [ 12 ] Z’s parents were never a couple and her father was not involved in her life until she was three years old. [ 13 ] The father was not declared on the child’s birth certificate until very recently.

[ 14 ] Since Z was three years old, the parents have shared custody of their daughter. Z spends every other week with each of her parents. [ 15 ] Z’s father has lived with Ms E for the past nine years. The couple has no children. Ms E is very involved with Z. [ 16 ] Z’s parents have a good relationship. They are able to communicate concerning their daughter. The relationship between the mother and Ms E is one of respect. [ 17 ] The mother subsequently had two other children who’s father is Mr. B.

The couple separated in April 2013 and share custody of the children who spend four days a week with their mother and three days a week with their father. [ 18 ] The relationship between the parents is conflictual. [ 19 ] Mr. B lives with Mrs F. The couple has a child, A (21 months) and is expecting their second child this summer. [ 20 ] On January 21 st 2016, the DYP retained a report concerning the three children. [ 21 ] It is the third report to be assessed by the DYP concerning these children.

In January 2015, the DYP received a report of educative neglect by the mother (tolerance of inappropriate behaviour by third parties in the home and inappropriate attitudes by the parent). [ 22 ] The facts referred, among other things to the presence of a man named G, a drug consumer who lived in the home. [ 23 ] The Director’s assessment concluded that the facts were well founded but that the security or development of the children was not in danger considering among other things that Mr. G no longer lived there. The mother then stated that Mr.

G would not be allowed to return as he as a bad influence on the mother’s then boyfriend, H. [ 24 ] A first report was assessed in November 2014 but concluded the facts were not founded.

At the time, Y, aged three years, had a bruise on his buttocks but it was not possible to determine if the bruise resulted from an accident or from being hit by either one of his parents and the file was closed. [ 25 ] The assessment of the present report reveals that X and Y were subjected to physical mistreatment by their mother, that the mother has little of no authority on her children, that she lacks judgment in the people she associates with and exposes her children to and that she has dependency issues, namely her relationship with men. [ 26 ] The children state that their mother is always mad.

Y says that his mother hits him hard on his legs, his buttocks and in his face when he doesn’t do as he is told. [ 27 ] Z describes an incident this past winter where Y had his mittens on and was trying to zip up his coat. He was crying. Z stated that her mother told Y that she would give him a reason to cry and slapped him the face. [ 28 ] She describes another incident where she was standing at the bathroom door while her mother was giving X her bath. X was crying and her mother pushed X’s head under water.

Her mother asked X if she was done crying and, as the child continued to cry her mother again put X’s head under water. [ 29 ] During the week of February 15 th , Z says she walked by X and Y’s bedroom. Her mother was in the room. Y was in his bed his face turned toward the wall. X was crying in her bed. Her mother told Z to « hurry up » and turned to X and slapped her in the face. Her mother left the children’s room and slammed the door. X continued to cry. [ 30 ] Z also told the social worker about an incident that happened on January 22 nd . The mother brought Z to a bar where there was karaoke.

G, his sister I and another girl she did not know where with them. [ 31 ] According to Z all three adults had liquor and were drunk. They left the bar at 10 PM (Z remembers seeing the time in the car). Her mother was driving and I and G were also in the van. Z was sitting in the back seat. [ 32 ] Z stated that her mother was playing chicken on the road as she drove and that G opened the van door while they were on the road. Z was scared. [ 33 ] She also says that they often went to G’s house after school, even on weeknights. X and Y were sometimes present. They would come home at around 10 PM.

Her mother would then feed them their supper and they would go to bed afterwards. [ 34 ] When the social worker met with the mother for the first time, the mother says she has no idea why the DYP would receive a report concerning her children. [ 35 ] She is initially not truthful in her statement. She denies ever having hit her children. She claims having seen Mr. G only one since the last DYP involvement stating she attended a children’s birthday party two weeks prior, on January 29 th, at her friend I’s home.

She denied seeing him on a regular basis. [ 36 ] When confronted, the mother admits to having gone to a bar on January 22 nd with Z, I, G and another girl. She claims that she drank only Pepsi. She confirms they left the bar around 10 PM and that G opened the van door while she was driving. [ 37 ] The mother eventually begins to cry and admits to hitting her children on the buttocks adding that she feels bad every time she does it. She denies having put X’s head under water and denies hitting the children in the face.

[ 38 ] She explains that she began resorting to hitting the children after her ex boyfriend, Mr. H, left her in the fall of 2015. She states the children don’t listen to her and don’t take her seriously.

She says she is very tired and needs help. [ 39 ] It is in this context that the Court provisionally entrusted the children to their respective fathers and ordered supervised contacts with their mother. [ 40 ] Since the children were entrusted to their fathers on a full time basis, the mother has followed the social worker’s advice and has taken action. [ 41 ] She began a personal follow up with Mrs Sophie Lapointe, a social worker at the CSSS whom she meets with every second week. She is working on her decision making process and the consequences of her choices.

She appreciates the services and Mrs Lapoinite has nothing but good things to say about the mother’s participation. [ 42 ] She has also contacted both the CSSS and the Villa Marie-Claire to request services to help her with her parenting skills namely her ability to adequately discipline and intervene with the children and to have them listen to her. [ 43 ] The CSSS has already identified a worker as the Villa Marie-Claire had done earlier but could not begin the services since the children were not with their mother.

The first of the two services to be available will be put into place. [ 44 ] The mother has also stopped associating with her friend I and her boyfriend J as well as I’s brother G. [ 45 ] She has also cut down on her work hours and has completed the many hours of community service that she had to do. Whereas she used to work 60 hours a week, she says she now works a maximum of 45 hours a week [ 46 ] The mother sees all three children every Sunday at the home of Z’s father and his spouse Ms E who supervise the visits.

The visits generally go well. [ 47 ] One incident arose early on in the visits where Y, who tended to react to his mother during the visits, had a tantrum and Ms E had to intervene because the mother could not control the situation. The mother was open to Ms E’s help and suggestions. [ 48 ] The evidence shows that the mother has dependency issues in her relationships with men. She acknowledges having difficulty being alone but does not feel that this is a problem.

When asked, during her testimony, if she felt she needed help regarding this issue, she replied « Why should I be alone ? » [ 49 ] She is currently in a new relationship since January with Mr K. She states that he is good for her, is always there for her and is the reason she is now a better person. Although he still has his own place, he is basically living with her full time since March. [ 50 ] She states that Mr K met her children for the first time when she and the children spent the weekend of February 19 th at his parents’ home. There was a dinner to celebrate her birthday.

She and the children also spent the following week-end there and the children have not seen Mr K or his family since because they were removed from her care on February 29 th. [ 51 ] Despite having spent only those two week-ends with K and his family the mother is convinced that the children have bonded with him and his family. She also states that it is a hardship on her boyfriend and his family to be separated from the children to whom, she claims they are quite attached. [ 52 ] The mother speaks to her children on the phone three times a week.

The children ask to speak to K and his family at every call and this does not concern the mother who, on the contrary, sees this as a positive sign. [ 53 ] The social worker is not asking the Court to extend the order of supervision of contacts between the children and their mother.

She has however asked the mother to be alone with her children during the future contacts in order to rebuild the relationship, namely the trust, between them. [ 54 ] Z also complained that, when they lived with their mother, she would not spend time with the children but was always with her boyfriend. [ 55 ] Despite the fact that she is aware that her daughter feels this way, the mother wants her boyfriend to be present at the contacts.

She feels it will hurt the children if he is not there because they want to see him. [ 56 ] In her testimony the mother explained her lack of patience with the children by the fact that she was working too many hours, was alone and had no help and that the children don’t listen to her. [ 57 ] She was stressed out and overwhelmed and had no one to talk to. [ 58 ] That is no longer the case since she decreased her work hours, no longer has community service to do, is now in a serious relationship and has begun a personal follow up at the CSSS. [ 59 ] She does not acknowledge having exposed her children to her instability in her relationships.

She states she did not know that her fiancé at the time, Mr H, who left in September 2015, did drugs and claims he lied to her [1] . As for L, although he stayed at her place, she says he was just a friend. She claims she’s now in a serious relationship and she does not feel she has dependency issues. [ 60 ] She doesn’t acknowledge either that she lacks judgment in the people she associates with and exposes her children to. [ 61 ] She testified that she stopped associating with I, her boyfriend J, and her brother G because the DYP and others told her they were not a good influence.

[ 62 ] She herself however does not feel that way and states that, if it were not for the DYP involvement, she would still be seeing them because, in her mind, they did nothing wrong to her children. [ 63 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the DYP was asking the Court to gradually allow shared custody of the children between their parents to be reinstated in the course of the next six months. [ 64 ] After hearing the mother’s testimony, the DYP asked for a recess and amended his conclusions by withdrawing that specific conclusion.

The social worker was heard again and explained the change in her recommendations by the fact that the mother acknowledges less today her difficulties and their impact on her children than she did a few weeks ago and the delegate feels it is premature to think a return to shared custody could be implemented without risk to the children in the next six months. [ 65 ] As for the children, they are doing well at their father’s. [ 66 ] Z is in the 3 rd grade and generally does well academically although a drop in her marks was observed in the fall of 2015. [ 67 ] She loves animals and is involved in the 4H Club. [ 68 ] Z wants to continue to live with her father on a full time basis.

She doubts that her mother can change and fears that things will go back to what they were at her mother’s home. She also fears that she could be hit. [ 69 ] She loves her mother and would like to spend quality time with her. [ 70 ] Z’s father wishes to continue to assume custody of his daughter and feels it’s important for her to maintain a relationship with her mother. [ 71 ] X and Y attend daycare three days a week where they are doing well.

The daycare has no specific concerns for either of the children and both parents cooperate well with them. [ 72 ] The children’s father observes that the children are fearful of his reaction when they make a mistake, for example if they spill a glass of milk. They often say that their mother will get mad.

They have said the same thing to the social worker. [ 73 ] The father does not agree with the mother’s request for a return to shared custody for the moment. [ 74 ] He has concerns about what goes on at the mother’s home and testified that he has « zero trust » in her. [ 75 ] He wants her to work on her relationship with the children. [ 76 ] He does not want the children to be alone with their mother for the moment and therefore wants Z to be present. [ 77 ] He acknowledges that the children miss their mother and that they ask about her. [ 78 ] The social worker has no concerns about either of the children’s fathers.

Both home environments are willing and able to answer the children’s needs.

Analysis and protective measures [ 79 ] After hearing the mother’s testimony at the hearing, it appears to the Court that, although the mother acknowledges some past difficulties, she clearly minimizes the entire situation and the reasons for the DYP involvement. [ 80 ] She admits to some physical mistreatment of the children (slaps on the bum) but denies, as Y and Z report, slapping them in the face and, as Z states, having put X’s head underwater during her bath. [ 81 ] Of these conflicting versions, the Court finds the children’s versions much more credible namely because the mother initially lied to the social worker about hitting the children at all and about still associating with G and admitted it only after being confronted with the facts. [ 82 ] Furthermore, Z’s information whether it be about the physical abuse of her siblings, the evening at the bar with G and others and the car ride afterwards, or the presence of a certain L and the fact that he slept in a truck at the company where her mother works is very precise and detailed. [ 83 ] The mother acknowledges many of the situations described by her daughter except for some parts concerning wrongdoing on her part. [ 84 ] Z is nuanced in her facts and does not seem to be trying to get back at her mother out of anger.

Although she is afraid that her mother will hit her too, she states that that has not happened. Although she complains that her mother spends all her time with her boyfriend and not any time with the children, she speaks positively about Mr K saying he is nice and makes jokes. [ 85 ] Although the mother has taken action since the DYP involvement namely her personal follow up with the CSSS which the Court strongly encourages her to continue, clearly much work needs yet to be done. [ 86 ] The past difficulties with the children cannot be solely attributed to the mother being overworked and stressed.

Other issues such as her dependency in her relationship, her poor judgment in the people she associates with, her difficulties in her parenting skills and the impact of these various issues on her children will have to be addressed.

[ 87 ] Of particular concern to the Court is the children’s apparent continued requests to speak to their mother’s boyfriend (a man they’ve met twice) instead of spending the time speaking to their mother and the attachment issues that their behaviour raises. [ 88 ] It is unclear whether the children are responding in that way in order to please their mother or whether they have a genuine need for or interest in contacts with Mr K and his family but either way, the mother’s conviction that the children have bonded with her boyfriend and his family and that their behaviour is a positive thing is worrisome. [ 89 ] The Court has no doubt that the mother deeply loves her children but, in view of the evidence, the mother’s request for an immediate or even short term return to shared custody appears to the Court clearly premature. [ 90 ] The children will have to rebuild their trust in their mother and this will take time.

She will have to show them that they are her priority by spending time alone with them and reassure them by showing them that her educative practices have changed. [ 91 ] Will the mother be able to put her children’s need to rebuild a secure and trusting relationship with their mother before her personal and clearly important need to be with her boyfriend all the time? [ 92 ] No one is asking her to choose one or the other (it is not an either/or proposition) but she will have to prioritize her relationship with her children if she hopes to once again assume shared custody of them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the present modified applications; DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are in danger for reasons of physical abuse by their mother concerning X and Y, of serious risk of physical abuse concerning Z and of educative neglect by their mother concerning all three children; ENTRUSTS X and Y to their father, Mr. B; ENTRUSTS Z to her father, Mr.

C; AUTHORIZES , in the children’s favour, contacts with their mother after agreement and according to modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that the parents take the necessary measures to put an end to the present situation of endangerment namely that they cooperate with the various workers and actively participate in the measures proposed by them; RECOMMENDS that the mother continue her personal follow up at the CSSS and that she participate in services aimed at bettering her parenting skills; TAKES NOTICE that educative services for the mother will be put in place for as long as deemed necessary; ORDERS that a person working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provide to the children and their parents aid, counsel and assistance for a period of six months ; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y and Z to the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A in order that the present measures be carried out. __________________________________ Monique Lavallée, J.C.Q.

M e Adèle-Anne Briand-Malenfant For the Director of Youth Protection M e Bruno Lapierre For the mother M e Marie-Pier Trépanier For Mr. B M e Sébastien Gagnon For the children Date of hearing : May 25 th 2016 Last exhibits D-4 and P-1