2019 QCCQ 19547, 2019 QCCQ 19547

Protection de la jeunesse — 197981 2019 QCCQ 19547 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 35346-196 Date: August 19, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2012 [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 parents 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 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of August 19, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] 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 , an six year-old child, based on the psychological ill- treatment and physical abuse to which she is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with a similar application regarding the child’s sibling whose situation is addressed in a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated April 29, 2019 are as follows: 3.1. as background information, the parents divorced in 2018, and the mother has custody of the child while the father has access every second weekend and various holidays; 3.2. the child is subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by her mother, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child and sibling have disclosed having been hit on multiple occasions a home by their mother as a means of discipline;

b) the mother did acknowledge that she has used inappropriate means of discipline with her daughter, such as tapping them with a spatula and threatening them with a wooden spoon; 3.3. the mother is currently working with an educator to modify the situation and to acquire more appropriate means of discipline; 3.4. the mother is also receiving support services and medical services to treat her depression; 3.5. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of her parents that could cause her harm and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents are unable to communicate with one another due to their highly conflictual relationship and communication for visitation is done through third parties;

b) the child is exposed to an unreasonable level of conflict between the parents in which the child is involved in the divorce and feels

she must take sides;

c) there are reasons to believe the father has “coached” the child regarding the severity of the mother’s physical discipline (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] The hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on June 18, 2019. [ 6 ] The Director recommended a shared custody arrangement between the parents whereby the child would spend an equivalent amount of time with each parent for an interim period, until the beginning of the school year. [ 7 ] Both parents admitted that the child’s security and development were endangered for the alleged reasons and agreed to the Director’s recommendations. [ 8 ] The suggestion proved to be successful and when the hearing was continued on August 19, 2019, the Director recommended to extend the shared custody arrangement, with aid counsel and assistance for an additional year. [ 9 ] The mother, assisted by Me Stah, agreed to ongoing social services but wanted the child returned to her care with access rights for the father every other weekend. [ 10 ] The father, assisted by Me Lesage, approved of the measures proposed by the Director. [ 11 ] Me Morin, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 12 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-8 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth Certificate; D-2: En liasse: Superior Court judgments in the file [...]; D-3: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated March 15, 2019; D-4: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated June 10, 2019; D-5: Observation Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated June 11, 2019 (filed under

article 292 C.C.P.); D-6: En liasse: Police Reports, bearing incident [number 1] and [number 2] (filed under

article 292 C.C.P.); D-7: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 8, 2019; D-8: Observation Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated August 8, 2019 (filed under

article 292 C.C.P.); [ 13 ] In

summary, both parents acknowledged the unreasonable methods of upbringing as well as the severity of the conflict to which their children were exposed. [ 14 ] Both parents have since made significant gains working with an educator. [ 15 ] The mother improved her ability to manage the children’s behavior: Ms. A has demonstrated an increased ability to integrate feedback and apply skills into different situations without prompting. Furthermore, she independently addressed new difficult behaviors as they arose. Ms.

A was able to outline concrete expectations, boundaries, and consequences without the educator’s support. Despite the difficult transition, Ms. A recognizes her consistency with implementing boundaries and consequences has had a positive impact on her daughter’s responses to structure. [2] [ 16 ] As fort father, he gained a deeper understanding of the challenges involved in caring for the children on a daily basis: Mr. B recognized that he often becomes overwhelmed when his daughters present difficult behaviors and chooses to remove himself from the home to prevent losing his temper.

His mother supervises his daughters while he goes for a walk. He states that his daughters are able to calm down with his mother but seem to escalate when he attempts to address their behaviors. Mr. B shared that after experiencing [the child’s sister’s] tantrums more frequently he can understand why Ms. A would have lost her temper (in the past) and used physical discipline.

He fears doing the same so he will continue to remove himself and use his mother’s support until he is able to better manage his own frustration. [3] [ 17 ] The children have reportedly adjusted and “stated that for the time being things are going well.” [4] [ 18 ] The recommended arrangement allows the children to bond with each parent, provides the mother with respite to avoid becoming overwhelmed, and allows the father to develop greater insight and sensitivity to his children’s needs. [ 19 ] The mother did not present sufficiently compelling arguments to establish that her request for sole custody is in the children’s best interest.

Most of her arguments centered on wanting the situation to revert to what it was before the Director of Youth Protection’s intervention, yet she failed to establish any concrete benefits that would outweigh the significant progress made following the order for interim measures. [ 20 ] Both parents will need to continue their efforts to improve their ability to manage the children’s behavior appropriately, as well as to shield the children from exposure to any unresolved conflicts.

[ 21 ] Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (

c) and 38 (e) (1) 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: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of both her parents TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child will be spending alternate weeks with each of her parents; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure the child’s regular attendance at school TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s undertaking to ensure the child’s transportation to and from school when she is in his care; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents ensure that the child’s activities remain as consistent as possible; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents not expose the child to their conflict; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from denigrating one another in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS that both parents continue to work with an educator in order to improve their methods of disciplining of the child and to develop greater insight in relation to the child’s exposure to parental conflict; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother not use any means of physical discipline with the child; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents not communicate with one another in the presence of the child, unless in case of an emergency; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations of her treating professionals, including taking any medication as prescribed, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of her upcoming appointment for a referral for psychological counselling or psychiatric follow-up; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet when requested; [ 34 ] 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 her family; [ 35 ] 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; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of twelve months.

Signed on September 11, 2019 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Georgia Limperis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marc Morin Attorney for the child Me Lilian Stah Attorney for the mother Me Marilyn Lesage Attorney for the father

TD/vl