2020 QCCQ 10684, 2020 QCCQ 10684

Protection de la jeunesse — 201415 2020 QCCQ 10684 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 34520-189 Date: February 14, 2020 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parent JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a two year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect, serious risk of sexual abuse, inadequate supervision and psychological ill-treatment to which he is exposed. [ 2 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 3 ] In light of the allegations, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child remain entrusted to his mother but that contacts be prohibited with his maternal grandmother’s husband, and that contacts with his father be determined by the Director, with other corrective measures for a period of one year. [ 4 ] The mother, assisted by Me Ameur, admitted the grounds of endangerment, except the alleged serious risk of sexual abuse, and agreed to all the proposed measures.

In addition, she asked that contacts between the child and his father remain supervised at all times and also asked to be granted the exclusive right to sign any travel authorizations required for the child. [ 5 ] The father, assisted by Me Denault, admitted all the alleged grounds of endangerment, acknowledged that he exposed his son to inappropriate sexual behavior and agreed to all the proposed measures. He agreed that contacts with his son be determined by the Director and also agreed to follow all the recommendations in his Parental Capacity Assessment and requested assistance in finding parenting classes.

However, he opposed the withdrawal of any attributes of his parental authority and undertook not to refuse any reasonable travel requests for the child. [ 6 ] Me Sabik, who represented the child, argued that the evidence adduced by the Director effectively establishes all the alleged grounds of endangerment and argued that the child’s exposure to sexual activity constitutes sexual abuse rather than posing a serious risk of sexual abuse.

She otherwise approved of the measures proposed by the Director and argued against the withdrawal of the exercise of any attributes of parental authority from the father. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-16 as evidence:

D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Agreement on voluntary measures, dated September 12, 2018; D-3: Court Report, by Dorli Fischer, dated November 19, 2018; D-4: Police Report, événement no. 42-180705-014, dated July 15, 2018 (filed under

section 292 C.C.P.); D-5: Y’s police interview by Detective Manon Champagne, dated July 11, 2018; D-6: Mother’s police interview by Detective Manon Champagne, dated July 11, 2018; D-7: Mother’s parental capacity evaluation, by Dr. Niki Saros, dated November 27, 2018 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-8: Y’s psychological assessment, by Dre. Catherine Cloutier, dated January 30, 2019 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-9: Mother’s psychiatric assessment, by Dr. Daniel Frank, dated February 11, 2019 (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-10: Addendum, prepared by Dorli Fischer, dated March 4, 2019; D-11: Child’s new birth certificate; D-12: Evaluation of signalement, prepared by [social worker 1], dated August 14, 2019; D-13: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated August 29, 2019; D-14: Addendum II, prepared by [social worker 1], dated December 4, 2019; D-15: Father’s parental capacity assessment, prepared by Dr. Niki Saros, dated October 18, 2019, with c.v. en liasse (filed under

section 293 C.C.P.); D-16: Police Report MTLEV-1900647033. [ 8 ] In

summary, the child’s situation was reported when his older half-sister disclosed that she was sexually abused by their maternal grandmother’s husband. [ 9 ] The mother and her three children were sharing an apartment with the maternal grandmother and her husband for many years and the reported incidents of sexual abuse are admitted although the mother claims that she took the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 10 ] However, the evidence establishes that the mother continued to reside with her children and the perpetrator for years after her daughter’s initial disclosure, despite the mother’s own admitted suspicions, due in part to her emotional and financial dependence on her own mother. [ 11 ] In addition, although there is no indication that either the child or his brother were actually touched or targeted by their step- grandfather, the boy’s extreme vulnerability because of his young age increases his risk, especially when considering the mother’s attitude towards the issue.

As indicated in the Court Report: When asked if she was worried for the boys’ safety in the home, Ms.

A stated that, in the Chinese culture, if a boy swallows another man’s semen, it makes him stronger. [1] [ 12 ] The tribunal concludes that the child faces a serious risk of sexual abuse by his maternal grandmother’s husband and that any contact with him must be prohibited. [ 13 ] In addition, more recently, the child has been exposed to sexual activity between his mother and father in a way that constitutes sexual abuse. [ 14 ] Although the mother and father present differing accounts about whether their sexual relations were consensual or not, both admit to having had sexual relations in the presence of the child and his half-brother. [ 15 ] The events were reported as follows: On June 21, 2019, after playing at the park, Mr.

B went to his apartment with Z and D. Ms. A followed them. Once Ms. A entered the apartment, Mr. B locked the door and brought her to the bedroom where the children were playing. Mr. B pushed her onto the bed and had sex with her in front of the children despite the fact that Ms. A asked him to stop. D asked Mr. B “what are you doing to my mom” and Mr. B answered: “I put another baby in your mother”. The following day, Mr. B met with Ms. A and the two young children, played in the park with them and accompanied them to Walmart and paid for the children’s swimming gear. On June 23, 2019, Mr. B met Ms.

A while she was waiting for her daughter. Mr. B entered into Ms. A’s car and they went to Jarry Park to swim. Ms. A left the two younger children with Mr. B while she was parking the car. Mr. B and the children did not wait for her where she instructed them. Upon Ms. A’s arrival, D was crying. On July 8, 2019, Ms. A reported the event on June 21, 2019 to the police. She described her relationship with Mr.

B as punctuated with control and abuse. [2] [ 16 ] With the exception of the extent to which the acts were consensual, the incidents are essentially admitted as described, except that the father claims that the parents were under a blanket whereas the mother says that they weren’t.

[ 17 ] In any event, the child’s brother was sufficiently aware of the adults to question their behavior which was undoubtedly totally inappropriate and demonstrates a serious lack of judgement on their part, in addition to a blatant disrespect for necessary boundaries between adults and children. [ 18 ] According to the father, this was not an isolated incident: […] there were multiple times where Ms.

A had sex with him in his bedroom while the children were watching TV in the same bedroom. [3] [ 19 ] Despite the mother’s claims that she was forced to have sexual relations with the father in her children’s presence, she repeatedly put the children in contact with him, further exposing them to inappropriate behavior. [ 20 ] Both the mother and father minimize the impact of their behavior on the children: When she was confronted with the incident in the signalement, she minimized the inappropriateness of repeatedly having intercourse in the presence of her children. Mr.

B appears to be emotional and fragile, during the interview, he cried 4-5 times.

He seemed to have no idea as to the inappropriateness of repeatedly having intercourse in the presence of D and Z. [4] [ 21 ] The child’s repeated exposure to adult sexual activity clearly poses a threat to his healthy sexual and emotional development and constitutes sexual abuse even though no direct contact is involved and the child’s presence is incidental. [ 22 ] It should also be noted that the mother’s Parental Capacity Assessment as well as her psychiatric assessment consistently point to limitations that impede her judgment: The personal history suggests significant deficits in adaptive functioning in areas such as, independent living, self-sufficiency, interpersonal relationships, social judgement, planning ability, and decision-making. [5] […] Insight and judgment were clearly deficient. […] In my opinion, Ms.

A suffers from a personality disorder with trait disturbances in the narcissistic, paranoid and anti-social domains. [6] [ 23 ] The father’s Parental Capacity Assessment reveals that he also faces significant challenges that affect his parenting skills: The psychosocial history reveals chronic mental health challenges for which Mr. B has sought and received professional help. Mr. B is aware of his diagnoses and to some extent, he recognizes the functional consequences of his mental health on his life roles, including parenting.

The psychometric testing suggests underreporting of the chronicity and severity of his mental health symptoms and his challenges in adaptive functioning (interpersonal, occupational). It is relevant to consider the functional consequences associated with Mr. B’s diagnoses of ADHD, Obsessive-Compulsive (traits), and Borderline Personality Disorder (traits). [7] […] The assessment results reveal a psychosocial history where there have been periods of impairment in emotional, interpersonal (social), and occupational functioning, and related factors that may be associated with parenting risk.

In particular, impulsivity, exercising appropriate judgement and decision making, difficulty following through with less preferred routines on a regular basis, interpersonal instability / conflict, and emotional regulation. [8] […] The combined results of the assessment data reflect his feelings of ambivalence, self-judgement/self-reproach; he struggles with identity, dependency, and following through with his aspirations.

There are concerns that these challenges may supersede his capacity for prioritization of his son, even though he is quite well-intentioned. [9] [ 24 ] Contacts between the father and his son are currently supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and occur weekly for two hours. [ 25 ] The father is punctual, and consistently present and prepared. He recognizes the need to build his relationship with his son and the need to learn how to play an active positive role in his son’s life.

Given his challenges, it will be necessary to proceed with caution and the father accepts that contacts with his son be determined by the Director who intends to gradually normalize them if possible. [ 26 ] The Director’s position is supported by the findings of the assessment: […] Mr. B appears to have good parenting ability during the current visits and within the structured and supervised context. It is evident that he is emotionally invested and is concerned about Z’s well-being.

It is expected that he could have a more present parenting role with a gradual increase of contact and less supervision as overseen by [Center A]. [10] [ 27 ] The mother’s insistence on continued supervision for the entire duration of the order is not warranted as long as the father continues to collaborate and demonstrates that he can benefit from the services offered, including parenting classes. [ 28 ] Regarding the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, the father undertakes to authorize reasonable travel plans. It

would be premature to limit the exercise of his parental authority as the mother has not presented a detailed travel plan. [ 29 ] Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities all the alleged grounds of endangerment as well as sexual abuse and that the measures recommended are in the child’s interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the application; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) (iii), 38 (b) (2), 38 (c), 38 (d) (1) and 38 (d) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 33 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and his step-grandfather, Mr.

E; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his maternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts occur weekly for two hours and that they will be gradually normalized if the situation allows; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s request for assistance from the Director of Youth Protection to identify parenting courses that he could attend; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to do so as soon as possible; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the father benefit from parenting classes as soon as possible. [ 39 ] ORDERS that the family continue to benefit from the services of an educator for as long as necessary; [ 40 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother seek support services for her personal difficulties from the community (i.e.

CLSC); [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. Signed on February 14, 2020 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J.

Me Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the child Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the mother Me Louise Denault Attorney for the father Hearing dates: March 26, September 4 and 5 and December 17, 2019 TD/vl