2019 QCCQ 13942, 2019 QCCQ 13942

Protection de la jeunesse — 194070 2019 QCCQ 13942 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000602-182 DATE: June 20, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2013 Child -and- A -and- B Parents/Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized with an application for protection. According to the director of youth protection (DYP), the child is subjected to psychological ill-treatment and therefore his security or development is in danger. The DYP recommends notably that the child be entrusted to his mother. [ 2 ] The mother shares the DYP’s position.

So does the child’s counsel, suggesting, however, that contacts between the child and his father are increased. [ 3 ] At first, the father denies that his son’s security or development is in danger. At the end of the day, it is not in dispute anymore, but the father wants to go back to the previous shared custody. [ 4 ] The child’s parents separate in 2016. Prior to that, their relationship is stormy. The mother talks about her spouse being controlling and violent towards her. [ 5 ] The parents have shared custody of the child.

The latter has a good bond with both parents and also a significant relationship with his paternal grandmother. Often, the grandmother takes care of transportation, since the parents are not on speaking terms. [ 6 ] As a matter of fact, the father was subject to a peace bound prohibiting contact with the mother. He failed to respect it and was convicted following the breach. Their relationship is not harmonious, to say the least.

However, the mother believes in the importance of a healthy father and son relationship and thinks her former spouse is a good father. [ 7 ] Nevertheless, the father has major problems which have an impact on the child. [ 8 ] The father makes complaints, to the police and social services, repeatedly, in regards with allegations of physical or sexual abuse. Each time, the child is met and the situation assessed and all complaints are declared unfounded.

The father testifies about it at the hearing and does not seem to question his attitude. [ 9 ] On December 17, 2018, an unfortunate incident takes place, which leads to the intervention of the DYP. The child is at his paternal grandmother’s. The father asks her to bring him home. They exchange peculiar text messages. The father notably writes that his son is a liar and that he can live with liars. It does not make sense to the grandmother and neither does it to the Court. [ 10 ] The grandmother testifies that when they arrive at her son’s, the latter is disorganized. He is yelling and insulting his son. The

child is crying and shaking, obviously afraid of what is going on. Shortly after, a little neighbour comes by to see his friend and the father instructs him to leave. The child gets into the house with his father, the grandmother leaves and go immediately to social services to disclose the situation. [ 11 ] The father denies the incident. He says he only raises his voice to tell the little neighbour to go because his son cannot play with him at the moment. His son is not crying, he is only excited and has high energy level.

When questioned about the text messages, the father’s explanations are confused and incomprehensible. [ 12 ] The Court does not believe the father. His version of the incident is highly unlikely. Moreover, it is not compatible at all with the child’s reaction. [ 13 ] Indeed, the child is disturbed following the event. The social worker meets him the same night and he tells her about what took place. In between, he is not in touch with either his grandmother or his mother. His narrative is the same as the grandmother’s.

He fears his father at the time and that feeling arises again from time to time for the following months. [ 14 ] Since December 17, the child is entrusted to his mother, on a provisional basis. [ 15 ] That incident appears to be an isolated event. However, the father’s attitude and behaviour on other occasions also raise questions about his mental state and its impact on his parenting skills. [ 16 ] The grandmother states that on another occasion, the father drops the child on the floor and tell her to take him. She also reports that, once last summer, the father comes to her residence, angry at another relative.

He drives recklessly while the child is in the vehicle. [ 17 ] Another incident takes place in April of this year. The mother and grandmother plan a short trip to Town A in order to visit family for Easter. The social worker contacts the father to see if he agrees with the trip, since it means that a supervised visit has to be cancelled. Not only does the father refuse, which the Court can understand since he wants to see his son, but he threatens to call the border patrol so they cannot cross borders.

Once again, at the hearing, the father provides confused and unlikely explanations for his reaction. [ 18 ] The father’s cooperation with social services is also an issue, up until recently. For a few months, it is very difficult for the social worker to reach the father and discuss with him. Fortunately, it is now easier. However, the social worker often questions the father’s comprehension when they talk. At the hearing, the father states he is willing to work with professionals and to receive anger management counselling.

He also agrees to submit himself to drug tests. [ 19 ] The father needs to work on parenting skills as well. According to the father, children should be free, without rules to respect. This leads the Court to wonder about authority and discipline at the father’s. [ 20 ] Unsurprisingly, the child shows behaviour issues. He displays aggressive behaviour, at home and in school. However, people around him notice that his behaviours are more appropriate since he lives with his mother full-time. [ 21 ] The mother has good parenting skills. She is worried about the father’s attitude and its impact on the child.

Nevertheless, she indicates that her goal is not to take her son away from his father. She adds that the child is fairly happy with he comes back from seeing his father. He talks about missing his dad and asks questions when there are no visits. [ 22 ] Generally speaking, visits between the child and his father go well. [ 23 ] The child is aware of the strained relationship between his parents. As a matter of fact, he reports hearing negative comments concerning the other parent from both his father and mother. [ 24 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security or development of the child is in danger.

Being exposed to the conflict opposing his parents constitutes psychological ill-treatment. So does the father’s unpredictable attitude and outburst. Furthermore, the evidence also reveals that there is a serious risk of neglect arising from the father’s denying of the importance of rules and discipline for such a young child. Protective measures must also aim at correcting that issue. [ 25 ] The father wishes to go back to shared custody. The Court has no doubt about the father’s love for his child, and that of the child for his father. They certainly both wish to spend more time together.

However, it would be premature to go back to shared custody now or in a very near future, as it would be against the best interests of the child. [ 26 ] For the moment, supervised visits must take place, as often as possible, upon agreement between the parties. The child still worries about his father’s reactions. He talks about being scared of his father at times.

He needs to learn to trust him again. [ 27 ] On the other hand, the father has to change his ways in regards with discipline, in order to be able to take adequate care of his son and fill his needs. [ 28 ] In the circumstances, the Court considers that supervision of contacts is appropriate. Hopefully, with professional support, the situation will evolve and unsupervised contacts will be possible soon. [ 29 ] The application is well founded.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to sections 38c) and 38b)2 o of the youth protection act ; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 33 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and his father be determined following agreement between the parties, and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from psychological assessment; [ 35 ] FORBIDS the parents to denigrate the other parent in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in random drug testing and anger management counselling; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a parental capacity and psychological evaluation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until January 31, 2020; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Me Ariane Cayer for the father Date of hearing: May 1, 2019