2018 QCCQ 20137, 2018 QCCQ 20137

Protection de la jeunesse — 189984 2018 QCCQ 20137 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031729-163 DATE : November 9, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2008 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 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 November 9, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend and revise the order rendered on October 27, 2017. [ 3 ] On July 25, 2018, the Tribunal ordered that the child remain entrusted to his mother’s care and that support measures be ordered on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the mother’s care and that support measures be ordered for an additional period of six months [ 5 ] The mother and the child’s attorney agree with the Director’s plan. [ 6 ] During his testimony, the father first asks for the file’s closure, then requests a shared custody of the child.

He finally agrees with the Director’s plan. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The parents made gains, learning alternative disciplinary methods for the child. There has been no new reported incident of physical discipline by either parent. [ 9 ] On June 2018, the Superior Court granted the parents’ application for divorce. The child’s custody was granted to the mother and it was decided that the modalities of the father’s access rights would be determined by the Director.

This judgment was based on the parties consents signed in February 2018.

[ 10 ] Despite this judgment, the father constantly insist, to the youth protection worker, that he wants to have his children fifty percent of the time. If this is not happening, the father makes threats of leaving the country. [ 11 ] During his testimony, the father claims that he signed the consent under duress. Although he was duly represented by an attorney. [ 12 ] The mother reports that the father had difficulty respecting the visitation

schedule (cancelling, adding a visit, bringing or picking up the child late). She also reports that, during the children’s visits with the father, since they are entrusted to her, the father has not fed them as he feels it is not his responsibility. She mentions that the father does not show up to the school meetings and does not ensure that homework is done. [ 13 ] The father reports that the mother is always late bringing the child for the visits.

He reports that he always feed the child. [ 14 ] The parents’ relationship clearly remains conflictual. [ 15 ] The father has not participated in an anger management program. He mentioned that he tried to register, but that no one called him back. The Tribunal is of the opinion that should he have tried harder, he would have completed the program. The father has not fully collaborated with the Director. He refuses to meet with the youth protection worker at her office.

As it was the case last year, he believes that the current youth protection worker is partial. [ 16 ] The mother actively collaborates with the Director. She is concerned that if the youth protection file is closed, it might be difficult to work with the father. [ 17 ] The Director’s intervention remains necessary in order to solidify the gains made by the family and to provide support. The Director’s support remains necessary in order to arrange for the child’s contacts with the father.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still in danger; [ 20 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the order rendered on October 27, 2017; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection until such time as the parents take the necessary steps to modify the visitation

schedule between the child and the father through Superior Court; [ 23 ] TAKES ACT , if there is a request in Superior Court from the father or the mother, that they will notify the Director of Youth Protection of such motion and that he will be present in Superior Court to report to the Court regarding visitation and/or custody; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a program to address his anger issues; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from all forms of verbal and physical violence including the use of threats and/or exposing the child to adult conflicts; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months; [ 29 ] 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 November 19, 2018 /cd Mtre Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christian Benoît Counsel for the child Date of hearing: November 9, 2018