2016 QCCQ 19683, 2016 QCCQ 19683

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610386 2016 QCCQ 19683 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029633-153 Date: November 23, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 23, 2016. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on July 8, 2015, whereby a number of corrective measures, including therapeutic services, were ordered for the now ten year-old child, X , to help her deal with the ongoing intense conflict between her parents, for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision and extension dated April 5, 2016, are as follows: 3.1. on July 15, 2015, the Superior Court granted mother full custody of Y and X, and unsupervised visitation for father every second weekend; 3.2. while some limited gains have been made, there continues to be a great deal of conflict that the children are exposed to; 3.3.

Y and X are caught in the middle of a loyalty conflict and they change their demeanour as well as their stories depending on their environment and which parent they are with, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) in February 2016, allegations of physical and verbal abuse of X on the part of the father were reported, but were not substantiated;

b) in January 2016, Y left his mother’s home following a conflict with her and he remained with his father for several weeks until mother insisted that the Superior Court order be respected; 3.4. Y and X have demonstrated challenging behaviours at school and at home, by being defiant and disrespectful towards adults; 3.5. services from a psychologist were obtained through IVAC, but were terminated after a few sessions as Y and X were not engaged; 3.6. further steps have been taken to seek out therapeutic services in the community for the family; 3.7. the parents are devoted to their children, and have reported wanting to continue to receive services and youth protection intervention;

3.8. the chronic and severe conflict between the parents requires continued youth protection intervention given it’s impact on the children (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] However, since the filing of the motion, the situation has evolved considerably in that the mother decided to move to [Province A] to join her current partner with whom she has a very young child. [ 5 ] The father expressed bitter resentment at the mother’s decision and its impact on their two children whose ability to have frequent contacts with both parents is inevitably affected by the distance resulting from the mother’s decision to rebuild her life in another province. [ 6 ] The hearing began before the undersigned on June 30, 2016 and the parties readily admitted the need for ongoing Director of Youth Protection intervention given their continued conflict. [ 7 ] Both parents initially sought to be entrusted with the care of their two children.

However, as the mother’s departure to [Province A] was imminent, an interim order was rendered and the Court took judicial notice that the child’s brother would spend the summer in City A with their father whereas X would accompany their mother to [Province A], and that contacts between each child and the other parent would be arranged. [ 8 ] The summer reportedly went relatively well for both children and the parties returned to Court on August 24, 2016 to determine where the children would live before the beginning of the school year. [ 9 ] It was decided that the child’s brother would remain with their father and X with their mother until the hearing could be continued on November 23, 2016. [ 10 ] At the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, after extensive negotiations, the parties essentially agreed to prolong the arrangement in effect since the mother’s move to [Province A]. [ 11 ] However, despite their ability to finally reach an agreement regarding custody of their children, as well as necessary protective measures, tension between the parents remains extremely high. [ 12 ] As described in the last Court Report: Since the last court date, it is clear the tension and conflict within the family has increased, with the children still being in the middle of the conflict and continuing to experience struggles with loyalty to their parents.

Both parents require ongoing support in realizing how their own actions encourage this loyalty bind, and how their behaviours contribute to the negative interactions or the children’s expressions with regards to the other parent and to address their own personal issues. The DYP takes note that the children wish to remain where they are currently residing, and both children appear to be doing well overall.

The visits have been problematic for many reasons and concerns exist regarding how these visits will work out in the future. [1] [ 13 ] The parents are urged to focus on the impact of their behavior on their children and to develop strategies to protect their children from the animosity between them. [ 14 ] It is hoped that with time and therapeutic support the children and their parents will adapt to their new living arrangements and learn to compensate for the distance separating each child from one of their parents. [ 15 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the agreement reached between the parties is in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD’S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her father be determined by consent between the parties in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties in the signed Consent to judgment dated November 23, 2016; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from involving the child in their conflict, in their legal proceedings, and from denigrating one another in her presence; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the child receive therapeutic services to address her family situation; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in therapeutic services to address her personal issues; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in therapeutic services to address his personal issues; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michel Leclerc Attorney for the adolescent Me Anne Thibault Attorney for the mother Me Jessica Barrette Attorney for the father Hearing dates: June 30 and November 23, 2016. TD/vl