2021 QCCQ 15476, 2021 QCCQ 15476

Protection de la jeunesse — 218875 2021 QCCQ 15476 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-036046-191 DATE: December 2, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2017 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child’s security or development are compromised as the child is exposed to incidents of conflict and conjugal violence between the parents and that a serious risk of physical abuse exists. [ 2 ] On October 24, 2019, the Tribunal entrusted, on a provisional basis, the child to the mother’s care at the exclusion of the father.

The hearing regarding the application for protection was set for January 14, 2020. [ 3 ] On November 4, 2019, the January 14, 2020 hearing was postponed and the file was set pro forma for February 5, 2020. [ 4 ] On March 20, 2020 the case conference had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 5 ] On June 23, 2020, the Tribunal set a case conference and arguments regarding the question of a potential common hearing for December 3, 2020. [ 6 ] On December 3, 2020, the Tribunal decided to proceed with a common hearing for the situation of the father’s four children (Y, Z, C and X). [ 7 ] On March 4, 2021, as no one asked for Y and Z to be dispensed anymore, the Tribunal took note that they would both testify at the hearing. [ 8 ] On April 27, 2021, the Tribunal heard the testimonies of Z, Y, Mrs. [social worker 1], Mrs. [social worker 2] and Mrs. [social worker 3]. [ 9 ] On April 28, 2021, the hearing had to be postponed as the mother had to remain home in quarantine with her two children. [ 10 ] On September 23, 2021, the Tribunal heard the testimonies of Mr. [social worker 4], Mr. [social worker 5], the mother and Mrs.

D. [ 11 ] On October 5, 2021, the attorneys presented their arguments and the decision was put under advisement. [ 12 ] The Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to the mother’s care at the exclusion of the father and that support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 13 ] The mother asked for the file to be closed. [ 14 ] The father’s attorney mentioned that his client did not intend to come to Court. The father did not agree with the facts presented to support a conclusion of physical abuse on Y and Z. He decided not to present any evidence.

[ 15 ] After having heard the evidence, the child’s attorney supported the Director’s plan. QUESTIONS IN LITIGATION [ 16 ] Did the Director present preponderant evidence to the effect that the child was submitted to psychological ill-treatment? [ 17 ] Did the Director present preponderant evidence to the effect that a serious risk of physical abuse exists? [ 18 ] If so, are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS Did the Director present preponderant evidence to the effect that the child was submitted to psychological ill-treatment ? [ 19 ] On June 8, 2019, during the afternoon, while they were in the car, the father made death threats towards the mother. The child and her brother were both present in the car. [ 20 ] Later during the evening, the father returned home, intoxicated, and made new death threats towards the mother. When she found him in the kitchen, he had a knife and mentioned “ Do you feel threatened ”.

At some point he grabbed her by the throat and pushed her to the ground. [ 21 ] During this incident, C and X were present in the home. C witnessed the assault in his parents’ bedroom. [ 22 ] On June 9, 2019, the father was arrested and charged with assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm and death threats. Criminal conditions were put in place in order to prohibit communication with the mother. In September 2019, the mother agreed for the criminal conditions to be modified. [ 23 ] On December 20, 2019, the father signed a recognizance to keep the peace (

section 810 of the Criminal Code ) undertaking to respect certain conditions for a period of one year. Doing this, he recognized that the mother would have reasons to fear for her safety. [ 24 ] The mother reported to the Youth Protection worker that this was the first incident where the father was physically violent with her. [ 25 ] During the evaluation process, the father did not collaborate with the Director.

His collaboration was difficult to obtain during the orientation phase of the process. [ 26 ] The parents reported that they took steps with their pastor in order to work on their relationship. [ 27 ] Until September 2020, the child maintained sporadic contacts with her half-siblings Y and Z. Since then, visits ended abruptly. [ 28 ] The child maintained occasional contacts with the father in the community. The mother reported that since May 2021, the child had no contact with the father. [ 29 ] The father has not collaborated with the Director.

He only met with the Youth Protection worker once, on January 8, 2021. He does not acknowledge that the children were witness to an important incident of conjugal violence. He does not recognize having issues with anger management. [ 30 ] Assessing the evidence globally, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, on June 8, 2019, the child was witness to an important incident of conjugal violence between the parents.

Did the Director present preponderant evidence to the effect that a serious risk of physical abuse exists ? [ 31 ] Y and Z, the child’s half-sibling, testified to the effect that the father had used inappropriate means of discipline. The Tribunal did not find that they provided a reliable description of the facts. Depending on the context and on the identity of their interlocutor, Y and Z have added and subtracted facts to their statements. At times, they recanted their previous versions of events. Both children experienced a lot of difficulty situating events in time.

Their description of events changed drastically through their testimony. [ 32 ] As preponderant evidence was not presented regarding the question of physical abuse, the Tribunal does not consider that a serious risk of physical abuse exists for C and X. Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights ? [ 33 ] The Director alleges that the mother is minimizing the history and severity of the conjugal violence; that she never recognized the events of June 2019. This is not supported by the evidence.

During her testimony, the mother clearly recognized her description of the June 8, 2019 events to the police. She also recognized that the child was witness to verbal arguments. [ 34 ] In order to better understand conjugal violence, the mother participated in twenty sessions of therapy. [ 35 ] During her testimony, Mrs. [social worker 2], Youth Protection worker, mentioned that the mother was protective of her

children; that she was transparent, open and collaborative but did not feel that support was necessary. Mrs. [social worker 2] believed that the mother was pro-active as she would get services for the children as they are her priority. [ 36 ] During his testimony, Mr. [social worker 5], Youth Protection worker, mentioned that the mother was refusing to meet with him in the home.

Consequently, he had concerns that the father could still be in the home, but was unable to confirm this fact. [ 37 ] The Youth Protection worker did not receive any negative comments from school or daycare. [ 38 ] The mother mentioned that she has no relationship with the father and has no intention or going back in a relationship with him. Their last contact was at the beginning of Summer 2021. [ 39 ] Following two years of intervention, the Director still recommends an additional year of follow-up.

The Director’s rationale is not clear as the Director recognizes that the child’s needs are met by the mother. [ 40 ] Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the child’s security or development is no longer compromised. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] DISMISSES the application for protection; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the file be closed. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on December 2, 2021 /cd Mtre Dominique Doublas Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the child Mtre Christophe Lafontant Counsel for the mother Mtre Marc Bissonnette Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: April 27, September 23 and October 5, 2021