2019 QCCQ 14220, 2019 QCCQ 14220

Protection de la jeunesse — 194414 2019 QCCQ 14220 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-035012-194 DATE : July 2, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2006 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on July 2, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child is subjected to psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the child is in the middle of a conflict of loyalty between her parents and that she was denigrated by her father and step-mother. [ 4 ] Prior to this morning, the Director was also alleging that the child was physically abused by the father.

The Director amended its Application to remove this rationale of compromission. [ 5 ] It is important to mention that the child reported incidents of physical discipline. However, the father and his wife provided explanations. Following a global evaluation, the Director assessed that the explanations given by the father and by Ms. C corresponded more precisely to the reality of the child’s situation. The child is very sensitive. She is very attune to both of her parents and is put in the middle of the conflict of her parents.

She wants to please both of them. [ 6 ] Today, the Director recommends that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the child and her brothers be determined by the Director, including supervision if necessary. The Director also recommends diverse measures including that the child remains with her mother; that there be progressive contact reinstated with her father and support given by aid, counsel and assistance, by individual therapy for the child and also by a family therapy. [ 7 ] Both parents recognize that their daughter is exposed to conflicts existing between them.

The parents and the child’s attorney agree with the Director’s plan. At this point, the child is not ready to see her father. She would like to have telephone conversations and reinstate contacts in a progressive fashion. Question in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The parents are separated. The Superior Court granted them shared custody (one week/one week). At some point, without changing the Superior Court order, the situation changed to X visiting her father every second weekend and one evening per week. The situation eventually evolved to the child not visiting her father at all. [ 10 ] Since, at least 2012, the child has been exposed to the conflict existing between her parents. She is a brilliant and smart girl. She understands that her parents are in conflict, even if they do not communicate.

She perceives that she needs to please both of them or that she needs to “pick a camp”. [ 11 ] During the child’s interviews on November 15 and 28, 2018, she reported that her father often hits her and her brothers. She mentioned that her step-mother, Ms. C, lets the father hit them. [ 12 ] The child reported that, on one occasion, her father pushed her across the room. She was trying to intervene and prevent her father from hitting her brother Y with a spoon. [ 13 ] The child reported another incident where, while in the car, her father punched her in the arm.

He then smashed his fist into her backpack which was on her lap. [ 14 ] On another occasion, the father threw a bowl at her leg, which left a bruise. [ 15 ] The child reported that her father sometimes hits her on her hand and back with a spoon. [ 16 ] The child mentioned that her father talks badly about her mother to Ms. C. Her brothers then repeat what is said. [ 17 ] The child finally mentioned that her father calls her names such as “mentally retarded”, “bitch”, “selfish” and “useless”. She also reported that Ms.

C calls her names and says that her mother is “selfish”. [ 18 ] The father recognized that he sometimes used a spoon to threaten his children, but denied ever hitting them. [ 19 ] He reported that he threw a bowl in a playful fashion, like a Frisbee, while the children were running around. He did not throw it specifically at the child’s leg. [ 20 ] The father reported that he accidently hit his daughter’s stomach when he grabbed her backpack in the car. [ 21 ] The father denied ever denigrating the child but confirmed saying sentences like “stop acting like your mother”. He confirmed speaking negatively about Ms.

D with his wife, but that this happened behind closed doors, in the children’s absence. It is possible that the child and her brothers would have heard these conversations. [ 22 ] Ms. C denied the allegations to the Youth Protection worker and mentioned that she and her husband do not use physical discipline with the children. [ 23 ] She reported having discussions with her husband, behind closed doors about the child, but denied making denigrating statements. [ 24 ] The mother reported ongoing issues in the father’s home. She received verbalisations from her child but never witnessed the reported incidents.

Madeleine reported that her father had a drinking problem. [ 25 ] Following its investigation, the Director concluded that the child was not physically abused, however that her security or development was compromised as she was subject to psychological ill-treatment. The Court agrees with this assessment. [ 26 ] The child is very sensitive and attune to the conflict. [ 27 ] The child expressed suffering from depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, body dysmorphia and has had suicidal ideations. She tried to cut herself in May 2018.

She is currently being followed by a psychologist. [ 28 ] She wants contacts with her brothers. They also want to maintain contact with their sister. [ 29 ] As there were criminal charges laid, contacts between the father and the child were momentarily suspended. [ 30 ] In April 2019, the charges were not authorized and the conditions dropped. [ 31 ] On May 10, 2019, the Youth Protection worker was able to reinstate supervised visits between the child and her brothers. Contacts were sometimes problematic.

It will be important for the Director to decide who will supervise the said contacts. [ 32 ] On May 23, 2019, the father and the child participated in their first session of family therapy with Mr. Damyan Edwards, Batshaw psychologist. Participation by the parties was difficult. The Court encourages all parties to continue this useful process. [ 33 ] The Youth Protection worker had a difficult time mediating between the parents. She mentioned that the child had an excellent relationship with her two brothers. She plans to permit contacts in a quieter setting than a McDonald’s restaurant.

For the contacts between the child and her father, she plans to prepare a calendar with the Batshaw psychologist. [ 34 ] Throughout the year, the parents created the perfect recipe for a disaster. Their conflict evolved to the point where they do not have any meaningful communication.

[ 35 ] The child has been put in the middle of their conflict for a long time and is very sensitive and anxious. [ 36 ] The child, who resides with her mother, perceived that she was hit and denigrated by her father. She exaggerated certain events and reported them to her mother.

Due to the lack of communication between the parents, the mother could not verify the exactitude of what was reported by the child. [ 37 ] The child loves both or her parents but if the situation between them remains the same, problematic situations will probably be reported in the future. [ 38 ] At this point, neither parent is clearly accepting any responsibility in this matter. The mother testified that she never speaks negatively to the child about her father.

The father “ does not feel he is part of the problem ” and considers that he “ already communicates with the mother in a proper fashion ”. [ 39 ] The father acknowledged having said: “ stop acting like your mother ” to his daughter. During his testimony, he tried to imply that this was a positive statement. The Tribunal clearly does not agree with his assessment of the situation. [ 40 ] There is no clear recipe to resolve this situation. What is proposed by the Director and accepted by the parties is a good place to start.

The parents will have to truly collaborate with the Director and with the involved psychologists in order to find ways to communicate effectively with regards to their daughter. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her brothers, Z and Y be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision if necessary; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the family participate in therapy with a Batshaw psychologist; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to pursue her individual therapy; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain information from any involved treating professionals regarding the objectives of their services and treatment recommendations; [ 49 ] ORDERS that both parents do not denigrate each other in the presence of the child; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on July 11, 2019 /cd Mtre Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Karine Leclerc Counsel for the child Mtre Richard Brunet Counsel for the father Date of hearing: July 2, 2019