2017 QCCQ 18258, 2017 QCCQ 18258

Protection de la jeunesse — 178500 2017 QCCQ 18258 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-029934-155 DATE : September 28, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2008 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on July 5, 2016, entrusting the child X to the mother along with a social follow up and various other corrective measures for one year. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that, although the overall situation has improved, the child continues to be exposed to serious parental conflict.

Considering that the parents have not succeeded in their attempts to adequately communicate and co-parent, the Director’s intervention remains necessary. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is asking the Court to order that the child remain entrusted to the mother’s care along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 4 ] In addition, the Director is of the opinion that the father’s contacts with the child can be increased, in the spirit of ultimately returning to the joint custody that applied prior to the Court’s previous judgment.

In this context, the parties have concluded an agreement increasing visitation between the child and her father. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the allegations contained in the motion and concurs with the Director’s position. [ 6 ] The father admits all of the allegations. Although he has expressed a preference for joint custody, he agrees to work towards gradual reinstatement and accepts increased visits at this time. [ 7 ] According to the child’s lawyer, the child greatly appreciates the time that she spends alone with her father and expresses a desire for increased contacts.

The child’s lawyer concludes that the Director’s recommendation is in her best interest. The Situation (

i) The father : [ 8 ] Since the prior decision, the father has had weekly contacts with the child, including overnights. Their relationship has developed positively and the child has benefitted from their time together. [ 9 ] The father has participated in individual counselling over the past year, contributing to his progress with respect to his personal issues. He believes that shared custody is feasible in the short term and is working towards that goal.

[ 10 ] Although the father’s partner has reduced her role in the child’s life, she continues to overstep boundaries, adding to the parental conflict. According to the youth protection worker, the father acknowledges the situation and offers his collaboration on the matter. (ii) The mother : [ 11 ] The child’s relationship with her mother has improved; she no longer displays the same defiance as previously observed and has ceased using the parental conflict to her advantage. However, certain difficulties persist between the two.

On this point, the mother has occasionally implicated the child directly or indirectly in what are essentially co-parenting issues. [ 12 ] For example, the mother registered the child for swimming regardless of the father’s objection and despite his explanation that the activity created a scheduling conflict during his time with the child.

The mother then made her expectations on the subject clear to the child, putting pressure on her to ensure that the father took her to her lessons. [ 13 ] The child has on numerous occasions expressed her desire to be sheltered from her mother’s questioning and has even developed stomach aches from the stress these situations create. The mother has been sensitized to the child’s predicament and commits to modifying her behaviour. [ 14 ] According to the social worker’s testimony, the mother reacts strongly to the suggestion of shared custody.

She fears that the issues of parental alienation will resurface in such circumstances. Consequently, discussions for the purpose of increasing visitation with the father tend to be volatile. (iii) The services : [ 15 ] Overall, both parents collaborate well with the social follow-up and with the services of an educator.

Nevertheless, these latter services were eventually withdrawn because the professionals involved were of the opinion that “… the parents were putting too much emphasis on petty behaviours of the other parent which was adding pressure on X. [1] ” [ 16 ] The evidence further reveals that a miscommunication between the mother and the youth protection worker led to the needless interruption of a therapeutic service that was of a great benefit to the child. [ 17 ] In essence, the child was receiving counselling at school and had expressed that it was helping her cope with her stress.

In October 2016, the mother advised the school that the child would no longer participate in the service. Until the hearing before this Court, the youth worker was unaware of the reasons why such a decision had been made. [ 18 ] Subsequently, the child’s emotional stability began to deteriorate. In particular, the child reported: “(…) substantial worrying, nervousness and inability to relax, being misunderstood and that her family psycho-social stressors appear to be worsening. She appears more stressed in the care of her mother and occasionally the tension between X and her mother has been palpable. Ms.

B’s own stress is poorly regulated and appears to have been internalized and mirrored by X. Ms. B’s emotional reactivity and negative perception of Mr. A has the potential to elevate X’s stress level. X has been observed being hyper vigilant and she has asked her mother directly to stop questioning her in front of workers. It is the Director’s position that X would benefit from ongoing therapy to help reduce the impact of the high-conflict parenting. [2] [ 19 ] At the hearing, a clear explanation was never provided for the termination of the counselling.

However, it appears that the child was embarrassed about being pulled into counselling sessions at school in front of her peers. This would have led the mother to put an end to the service with no further discussion on the matter. [ 20 ] As it turns out, the same counselling with the same counsellor could have been offered at a different location. Unfortunately, an unexplained breakdown in communication regarding a subject of such obvious importance deprived the child of an essential service.

Although the counselling is in the process of being reinstated, the child has already suffered prejudice as a result. (iv) The parental conflict : [ 21 ] Although the intensity of the parental conflict has diminished, the parents remain unable to communicate in a constructive manner on a consistent basis. The social worker has observed recurring behaviour on both parts that he qualifies as “petty”, requiring his continual intervention. [ 22 ] Presently, a communication book is used between the parents to provide information to each other concerning the child.

The social worker is required to intervene at times to ensure that the language and content is always appropriate considering that the child has access to the book. For now, the book continues to be in use but monitoring is required. [ 23 ] The parents are currently enrolled in a co-parenting course that is mandatory in relation to the pending divorce proceedings in Superior Court designed to assist them in reducing their conflict and raising awareness of the potential impact on a child. (

v) The child : [ 24 ] At school, the teachers report that the child’s academic performance is not an issue. However, they’ve observed recurring problems such as restlessness, disruptive behaviour and difficulty with organization. [ 25 ] The youth protection worker sees a correlation between the child’s emotional distress and her behaviour at school. In particular, it has been observed that the child’s stress becomes most acute when issues between the parties remain unconcluded. For example, the most recent negotiations between the parties regarding visitation put an inordinate amount of pressure on the child.

Once an agreement was reached, her level of anxiety diminished and her overall behaviour improved. [ 26 ] According to the Court Report:

“X is aware of the tension between her parents and that between her mother and Ms. C. Whether the parents want to admit it or not, X is aware of this dynamic and she reports feeling caught between her parents and wanting neither of them to be upset with her. She expresses wanting to please both of her parents, wanting to be happy and have them in her life. X reports that visits with her father are going well; she feels comfortable with the current visitation

schedule and does not want to change it. Furthermore, X says she enjoys all of her activities. [3] Analysis and Conclusion [ 27 ] Although the overall situation has improved, the parental conflict remains a live issue that directly impacts the child’s well- being. The Director’s involvement therefore continues to be required in order to assist the parents in protecting the child from exposure to their personal difficulties. [ 28 ] Furthermore, the evidence reveals that the child requires therapeutic services that she has not been allowed to access since October 2016.

The mother’s decision to put an end to the school counseling without verifying other options or discussing her reasons with the youth protection worker was misguided and prejudicial to the child. It is equally surprising that the Director does not appear to have inquired very thoroughly into the reasons leading the mother to such a decision, if only to advise her more efficiently and in the child’s interest.

In such circumstances, a specific order providing for counselling is required. [ 29 ] In the child’s best interest, the parties have put aside their differences and reached an agreement regarding increased visitation with the father. The evidence confirms that greater contact is in fact appropriate and in keeping with the child’s needs given the progression of their relationship. [ 30 ] That being said, the Court notes that the father’s expectation is to gradually increase visits with a view to reinstating joint custody. Consequently, further negotiations during the course of the current order are foreseeable.

The Court reminds the parties that the child senses the stress and the pressure during this difficult process and suffers from the impact.

It is all the more important that the parties undertake future discussions with an open mind and in good faith. [ 31 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 32 ] THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of the mother; [ 36 ] ORDERS that both parents report periodically to the Director on the measures that they apply on their own regard or with respect to their child to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 37 ] ORDERS that both parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the visits between the child and her father take place in accordance with an agreement between the parties failing which, the Director shall determine the frequency, modality and duration of the visits and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that there is currently an agreement between the parties; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to any parental conflict or any denigrating remarks directed towards one or the other; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents continue their therapy for their personal issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that psychological or therapeutic services be provided to the child until no longer deems necessary by the treating professionals; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN CITY A On October 10, 2017

__________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Myriam De Blois Attorney for the D.Y.P. Claudine Du Sablon Attorney for the child Maria Battaglia Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 28, 2017 KO/lf