2016 QCCQ 18315, 2016 QCCQ 18315

Protection de la jeunesse — 169199 2016 QCCQ 18315 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-031204-167 525-41-031205-164 DATE: August 15, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X born on [...], 2001 Y born on [...], 2003 The Director of Youth Protection A applicant - and - A, mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection ( the Director) seized the Court with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the children be declared to be in danger. [ 2 ] The Director alleges the following: FOR X : 3.1. The adolescent is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his father that could cause him harm and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the mother is a victim of conjugal violence at the hands of the father in the presence of the adolescent;

b) the father insults and screams at the mother on a weekly basis;

c) the father often threatens the mother with physical harm;

d) the father has pushed the mother and thrown objects on the wall and floor;

e) the adolescent expresses being fearful of the father;

f) the mother admits to being afraid of the father as his behaviours are unpredictable;

g) the father minimizes the extent of his violent behaviours; 3.2. concerns exist with regards to the violent atmosphere which the adolescent is exposed to in the home. FOR Y: 3.1. The security or the development of the child is considered to be in danger for the following reasons:

a) the child exhibits behavioural difficulties;

b) the child is oppositional and defiant towards his mother;

c) the child admits to having moments of rage;

d) the child pushed the mother and hits her when tempered;

e) on one occasion, the child threatened the mother with a knife;

f) the child expresses feeling regretful about his anger and violent actions following the facts; 3.2. the mother has difficulty addressing the child’s behavioural issues; 3.3. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his father that could cause him harm and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the mother is a victim of conjugal violence at the hands of the father in the presence of the child;

b) the father insults and screams at the mother on a weekly basis;

c) the father often threatens the mother with physical harm;

d) the father has pushed the mother and thrown objects on the wall and floor;

e) on two (2) occasions, the father pushed the child at which point the mother intervened as it was believed that the father was about to punch the child;

f) the child expresses being fearful of the father;

g) the mother admits to being afraid of the father as his behaviours are unpredictable;

h) the father minimizes the extent of his violent behaviours;

i) concerns exist with regards to the child’s outbursts coupled to the violent atmosphere which he is exposed to in the home. [ 3 ] As explained later, the children are currently living with their mother and see their father on weekends. Based on the above allegations and developments since the motion was filed, the Director is recommending that the children remain entrusted to their mother with various support measures for a period of nine months. [ 4 ] The parents are present. The mother is assisted by a lawyer but the father is not.

The boys are present in the building but chose not to present in the court room. However, they are represented by a court-appointed lawyer. [ 5 ] The mother admits the allegations of the motion and agrees with the recommendations. [ 6 ] Generally speaking, the boys recognize the situation of ‘compromission’ as described by the Director and fully agree with the recommendations. [ 7 ] The father has not been very involved in the youth protection process. He met the youth protection worker once and has since refused to meet. Although he received them, he did not read the motion or the court reports.

Today, he denies most of the allegations of

the motion. In his view, any problems in the family are related to the mother’s obsession with cleanliness or her being over-protective of the children. He admits to sometimes throwing objects – but only his own – as a reaction to frustration caused by the mother.

He agrees to the boys continuing to live with the mother but for now, refuses to obtain services for himself because he does not need them and because he cannot afford them. [ 8 ] The Court retains from the evidence that the case was signalled to the Director in January 2016 in relation to the father’s conjugal violence, Y’s behaviour problems and the mother’s use of physical discipline on Y. [ 9 ] As outlined in the motion, during the course of the evaluation, all three areas of concern were substantiated. [ 10 ] More particularly, the children and their mother recognized that the father is regularly aggressive towards the mother.

He regularly gets angry, yells and throws things. His behaviour is unpredictable to the point where the boys are concerned about, and sometimes afraid of, their father. [ 11 ] The latter denied this during his sole meeting with the Director but initially said that he was willing to go for help nonetheless. [ 12 ] During the course of the evaluation, all family members recognized the other two issues. [ 13 ] First, Y does present very challenging and sometimes aggressive behaviour at home, particularly towards his mother, including a threat on one occasion that involved the use of a knife.

Second, the mother has sometimes resorted to the use of physical discipline towards Y. [ 14 ] Both Y and his mother recognize that they must find other ways to deal with their problems. They have been open and collaborative towards this end and there have been no new issues since the Director’s involvement. [ 15 ] Given the above, in late June, the Director concluded that the children’s security and development were compromised for the reasons initially signalled. [ 16 ] Shortly after, the mother left the father and she now lives alone with the children. The father sees the children on weekends.

He is now more involved with them than he was while living with the family. [ 17 ] The mother and children are doing relatively well and adapting to their new living arrangements. They continue to be open, transparent and collaborative with the Director. [ 18 ] The mother is open to receiving services for victims of conjugal violence and wants the father to do the same before considering a reunification. [ 19 ] As stated earlier, there are no indications at the time being that the father has any intention of either recognizing the issues related to his anger and violence nor of obtaining proper services.

Nonetheless, today, the Court encouraged the father to get this type of help for the sake of all family members. [ 20 ] Of note, the mother has yet to register the children for school. Yet, the school year is just around the corner. The boys’ lawyer has suggested that the Director assist the mother in this regard. CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X and Y is in danger within the meaning of

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 23 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their mother; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in individual therapeutic services namely services for victims of conjugal violence; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in therapeutic services related to addressing the identified behaviours; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the father engage himself in an anger management program; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court, including meeting with the youth protection worker when requested; [ 29 ] ORDERS the Director to assist the mother with the children’s’ school registration; [ 30 ] ORDERS a person working for [Centre A] to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 31 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF NINE

(9) MONTHS; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary.

_________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. M e Myriam De Blois Attorney for the applicant M e Dominique Trahan Attorney for the children Me Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the mother Judgment rendered verbally on August 15, 2016 CL/nl