2020 QCCQ 14407, 2020 QCCQ 14407

Protection de la jeunesse — 20735 COURT OF QUÉBEC 2020 QCCQ 14407 YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-032242-174 525-41-032243-172 DATE : February 11, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION FOR THE CENTRE INTÉGRÉ UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX A Applicant and X born on [...], 2014 Y born on [...], 2017 Children and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 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 a fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The present judgment renders and gives reasons for a decision taken under advisement on January 21 st , 2020. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of Applications filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection ( the Director ) to extend an order rendered by the undersigned on October 12, 2018, entrusting the children to the mother, at the exclusion of the father, with other corrective measures for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The Director alleges the following: For X : 3.1. the child has remained in the mother’s care; 3.2. the child started kindergarten in September 2019; 3.3. the child continues to receive weekly speech and language support and has made significant gains in regards to communication and vocabulary but may need additional services such as a Speech and Language Developmental assessment;

For Y: 3.1. the child has remained in the mother’s care; 3.2. the child continues to attend daycare everyday; 3.3. the child is thriving and is on-track developmentally and responsive to social interactions; For both children : 3.4. the mother provides for her child; 3.5. the father has met the delegate on three occasions in February 2019 to discuss the conditions of visits with his children as stipulated in the Court order; 3.6. the father has had supervised phone calls with his children on three occasions in March 2019 which had been positive; 3.7. on March 26,2 019, weekly supervised visits started between the father and the children; 3.8. the father has persisted in making threats of violence and death to the family of the mother; 3.9. on April 26, 2019, supervised visits were suspended due to the father’s on-going death threats toward the mother’s family and the associated potential risk to the children; 3.10. the mother continues to be psychologically abused by the father more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) on May 2, 2019, she went to the police station to press charges against the father for death threats to her family in Pakistan;

b) the mother refused to press charges because she believes that her children and her family would be harmed if the father were to be arrested and incarcerated; 3.11 the father continues to be violent and has significant anger and impulse control issues. [ 4 ] Based on the above, the Director is recommending that the children remain entrusted to their mother at the exclusion of the father for the next year.

Amongst other corrective measures recommended by the Director is a request that the father’s visits with the children be suspended and that the mother be able to consent alone in regards to the children’s school, medical and travel needs. [ 5 ] The mother and the children’s attorney agree with the Director’s recommendations whereas the father asks that his contacts and attributes of parental authority not be revoked. [ 6 ] In addition to the youth protection worker’s report which was filed as evidence, the Director and both parents testified. [ 7 ] The Court retains from the evidence that the father essentially gave no sign of life for about three (3) months following the October 2018 court order.

In January 2019, the father and the youth protection worker started looking at how to reinstate his contacts. The father met the youth protection worker and spoke to the children different times in February and March 2019 and contacts resumed in late March 2019. Three contacts then took place and were generally positive. X was happy to see her father whereas Y, who barely knows his father, was more indifferent. [ 8 ] Then, on April 24, 2019, the youth protection worker understood that the father made death threats towards the mother’s family who lives in Pakistan in relation to money the family owes him.

The Director then temporarily suspended contacts as authorized under the previous court order. [ 9 ] During the next few months, the father again made no attempts to reach out to the Director to resume his contacts. [ 10 ] As the previous court order was due to expire, the Director seized the Court and obtained its temporary extension until the January 21 st , 2020 hearing. [ 11 ] The father still did not come forward during this period in order to reinstate contacts with his children. [ 12 ] In addition to the father’s limited attempts to be involved in the children’s lives, the Director reports that dealing with him continued to be difficult.

For example, in her September 5, 2019 Court report, the youth protection worker writes: Mr. B has demonstrated that he continues to be violent, that he has significant anger and impulse control issues. Mr. B is unable to express his thoughts without screaming and unable to listen to responses. When the undersigned tries to offer clarification, he states that the former is making him angry. Mr.

B presents as unwilling to address and/or take responsibility for his persistent aggressive and violent behaviours that continue to place his children in danger and compromise his visits. (D-8, p.5) [ 13 ] Aside from this issue is that regarding consents needed for the children’s care. The mother is the children’s primary caretaker and, by all accounts, is taking excellent of the children. There are no concern in this regard.

However there are concerns in being able to reach the father and getting him to collaborate with the mother or the Director so that the children’s needs can be met. [ 14 ] Having the father involved in signing consents could also lead to him discovering their confidential location. Further, the father has refused that the mother leave the country with the children. Finally, the Director is concerned about the extra stress on the mother

should she constantly have to deal with the father. [ 15 ] The father has a very different version of events. He states that his contacts with the children were going well until he explained to the youth protection worker that there was a “death warrant” put out by a court in Pakistan in relation to money owed to him by the mother’s family and their use of a fake check. He states that because of this, the mother’s family faces certain death if they are found by the police.

According to him, this is what he tried to explain to the youth protection worker, not that he would kill them or arrange for them to be killed. The father states that he has actual Court papers (“death warrant”) regarding this but he did not bring them to Court. [ 16 ] The father also states that he has no trust in the youth protection worker whom he claims “lies 99% of the time” and has a hidden agenda to exclude him from his children’s lives.

For example, he would have wanted to buy things for the children but the youth protection worker told him not to. [ 17 ] The father wants to be able to sign consents to see and know how the children are doing, not to find their address. He refuses that the mother leave the country out of fear that she will disappear with the children. [ 18 ] The mother confirms that the children are doing well in her care. She states that her family in Pakistan was threatened by a group of armed men at the father’s request.

She claims that there is no such thing as a court ordered death warrant in Pakistan and that her mother was even able to come visit her from Pakistan in recent months, which would not have been possible had the courts put out some type of death warrant on her. To her, the father is inventing stories and is behind serious threats on her family, all of which adds pressure on her. [ 19 ] The mother wants to have a normal life with the children and be able to visit friends who live in the Unites States.

If need be, she would provide the Director with details of her trip. [ 20 ] She states that she has been open to the father having contacts with the children and recognizes that X loves her father. She has always collaborated so that the father could see his children but his threats and lack of consistent commitment towards the children make her feel that the father’s presence in the children’s lives is no longer in their best interest. [ 21 ] As mentioned at the outset, the children’s lawyer agrees with the Director and the mother.

He feels that if the father is to have contact with the children, he should first obtain services in order to deal with his issues, as had been recommended in the October 2018 Court order. [ 22 ] The Court notes that indeed, the father did not obtain any therapeutic services to deal with his anger issues, as had been recommended in October 2018. As well, the father has had very limited involvement with the children, only phone contacts in March 2019 and three personal contacts up to mid-April 2019. Before that, he made efforts to be involved in the children’s lives.

Nor in the last nine months. [ 23 ] The father’s testimony and claims are far from convincing. If he wants to be active in his children’s lives as he says, his actions point to the contrary. His claims of a death warrant on the maternal family in Pakistan and of efforts by the youth protection worker to oust him from his children’s lives appear far-fetched.

There is also no evidence that the mother intends or would even be able to disappear with the children in another country. [ 24 ] He also shows no sensitivity in regard to how his past and present behaviour causes enormous stress on the mother who has to raise two young children on her own, in hiding, while worrying about her safety and that of her family. [ 25 ] This being said, the Court is sensitive to the importance of promoting a parent’s relationship with his children, particularly in the present case where X knows and cares about her father. [ 26 ] The difficulty is in finding the right balance. [ 27 ] The father testified that he will engage in therapy if so required by the Court.

If he does, it may help him gain insight into how his behaviour is getting in the way of him having a positive relationship with his children. [ 28 ] Contacts can only resume if the father is engaged in therapy and strictly respects the conditions set by the Director in order for contacts to resume. If the father respects those conditions and is consistent in his contacts, they could increase and eventually, supervision could be decreased or lifted. [ 29 ] Given the father’s frequent lengthy absences from his children’s everyday life, the mother will be allowed to sign consents alone.

However, in his meetings with the youth protection worker, the father will be informed of how his children are progressing and what services they are receiving.

All professionals reports concerning the children will also be remitted to the father on condition that any information showing or indicating their address be removed from the document. [ 30 ] Given the absence of evidence that the mother could or would disappear with the children, the mother will be authorized to obtain passports for the children and travel with them in or outside of Canada. [ 31 ] For these reasons, the Court will DECLARE that the children’s security or development is still compromised and order the following corrective measures: [ 32 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their mother, at the exclusion of their father; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the father not make attempts, directly or indirectly, to locate the mother or the children, nor go to the daycare, school, or other locations where the children are;

[ 34 ] ORDERS that the address and coordinates of the mother, the children, the latter’s daycare or school and any other records/documents, including medical, that contain the aforementioned information be kept confidential from the father; [ 35 ] Given his consent, ORDERS that the father participate in individual therapy in order to deal with his anger issues; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain information from the father’s therapist in regard to his participation and progress; [ 37 ] ORDERS that contacts between the father and the children resume once the father is engaged in therapy and that the father agrees to abide by all conditions set by the Director regarding visits; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the frequency and all modalities of contact between the father and the children be determined by the Director, including supervision; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that contacts be increased and supervision decreased if the father visits the children regularly and collaborates fully with the Director of Youth Protection and if deemed in the children’s best interests; [ 40 ] WITHDRAWS from the father his attributes of parental authority regarding consents for the children’s daycare, school, extra- curricular activities, medical and travel needs, including obtaining a passport and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign said consents alone and to travel with the children inside or outside of Canada; [ 41 ] ORDERS that if so requested by the Director, the mother previously inform the Director of all trips she intends to take with the children outside of Canada; [ 42 ] ORDERS the Director to inform the father of how his children are progressing, what services they are receiving and remit to him all professional reports concerning the children on condition that any information showing or indicating their address be removed from the document; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange pertinent information with treating professionals working with the family; [ 44 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the family; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 46 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 47 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of one year. _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

Signed on February 11, 2020 Me Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the Director Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the children Me Guylaine Plourde Attorney for the Mother Me Hila Sima Huelsen Attorney for the father

Date of hearing : CL/nl January 21 st , 2020