2012 QCCQ 9647, 2012 QCCQ 9647

2012 QCCQ 9647 Protection de la jeunesse — 121386 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] CITY OF […] « Youth Division »

N o : 640-41-001288-106 DATE: February 28 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD: X Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Health Centre, working in Town A (Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in Town A (Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in Town A (Quebec), district A; Interested party -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits to the Court a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered September 21 st , 2010 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais in which the Court entrusted the child to a foster home for a period of one (1) year with gradual reintegration with his mother according to the evolution of the situation. [ 2 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six (6) months in order to clarify a life plan for him. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother and Mr.

B are present and represented by counsel. They are agreeing with the recommendations. But Mr. B, who always acted as the child's father, asks for contacts with the child. These contacts were suspended on October 12 th , 2011 because up until then, they seriously disturbed the child's life. [ 4 ] Today, Mr. B says he is ready to respect any condition to be able to see his "son". [ 5 ] The child's attorney agrees with the recommendations made by the D.Y.P.. He believes it is important for the child to know

Mr. B who acts as a father for him. However, he feels important that the contacts be closely supervised. Follow-up since the last Court order October 25 th , 2010 [ 6 ] The situation of the mother remains the same. Though she says she loves her son and wishes to stand up against Mr. B to protect him, in her actions, she is unable to do so. [ 7 ] At the hearing, she is present with Mr. B and says she is still in a relationship with him. [ 8 ] Mr. B has not made any attempts to change. Mr. B is still violent. Mr. B controls her. Because of Mr.

B's violent behaviors, the mother knows that X will not return to her care if she is in a relationship with him. Even though she knows that, Mrs. A remains incapable to resist to Mr. B. She is dependant. [ 9 ] In April 2011, the mother showed to the social worker bruises on her arm done by Mr. B. She said she was scared of him. [ 10 ] On May 21 st , 2011, the mother stated that Mr. B pushed her son hard enough to make him cry during a visit. The mother also said she realizes how possessive Mr. B is. At the same period, Mr.

B hit X again. [ 11 ] The mother provided statements to the police for the different events. She thinks that this demonstrates she is protecting her son. But meanwhile, the mother keeps going back to Mr. B who has not changed. [ 12 ] Today, seeing her still in a relationship with him worries the Court. [ 13 ] The mother has to seek help to improve her self-esteem and to learn how to stand up for herself. This is not done yet. [ 14 ] On October 12 th , 2011, the mother said she had a plan to go live in Town B with X. The D.Y.P. assessed the family where she intended to live.

The assessment was positive but the mother decided to go to Montreal instead. [ 15 ] As for Mr. B, he has a lot to prove to convince the Court he has changed. [ 16 ] Up until the Court decided to forbid contacts between him and X, Mr. B had been seriously disturbing X's life in Town A. [ 17 ] Mr. B did not respect any condition or

schedule for the visits with X. He did what he wanted without thinking of the impact of his "surprise visit". When he would see X, he would ask him to give information about his mother's relationship with other men. He would encourage him not to be a good boy in his foster families. He would hit X. X was reacting very negatively to these unexpected contacts and had fits. [ 18 ] Mr. B would also be aggressive with the foster families. The foster families feared Mr. B. X had to be moved from foster home to foster home because of Mr. B's behavior and X's overwhelming reactions to the contacts. [ 19 ] Mr.

B does not recognize his problems. He keeps blaming others. He says the mother is responsible for the conjugal violence. He says she does not listen to him. This is why he becomes angry. [ 20 ] Mr. B does not see his responsibility in X's difficult behaviors. He does not realize the contacts he has with him have a negative impact on the child. [ 21 ] Since X is placed in a foster home in Town B with no contact with Mr. B, X experiences some peace of mind. He is doing well. He does not have fits anymore. [ 22 ] X has maintained contacts with his mother. He saw her for 10 days during the Holiday period.

The contacts were positive. [ 23 ] At the hearing, the Court learns that the mother and Mr. B have seen X on the street in Town B recently. X would not have reacted negatively. He was happy to see Mr. B. Analysis [ 24 ] At the hearing, the Court was very clear with Mr. B. The Court will not allow him to disturb X’s peaceful environment anymore. [ 25 ] Mr. B has serious personal problems. He must urgently seek help to solve them. [ 26 ] In the meantime, is it in X's interest to have contacts with him? [ 27 ] Mr. B caused some prejudices to X in the pass. Can the Court truly believe Mr.

B when he promises he will not do so anymore? Can he really be a positive contribution to X's life? [ 28 ] The Court seriously considered to keep Mr. B away from X. [ 29 ] X is happy now. He is calm. He is quiet. He is behaving well and he is able to have a life for himself. Why would the Court put this fragile child at risk again? [ 30 ] X sees Mr. B as a hero. He imitates him. He is his paternal figure. The Court does not want to deprive X of a paternal figure but if the paternal figure is not going to be a positive one, maybe he is better off not to have one? [ 31 ] To ensure that Mr.

B becomes a positive model for X and not a disturbing one, the Court will allow the D.Y.P. to work on

reintroducing the contacts, but not at any cost. [ 32 ] There will be strict conditions to respect or no contacts at all. [ 33 ] If Mr. B does not respect the rules, conditions and dispositions set out by the Court or if X does not benefit from these contacts, the Court will allow the D.Y.P. to suspend the contacts. [ 34 ] As for the mother, she has a long way to go to be able to protect her child from Mr. B's violent behaviors. However, the mother is able to contribute in a positive manner to X's life. Because of that, the Court will encourage these contacts.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS this motion; REVISES the decision rendered on September 21 st , 2010 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais; DECLARES that the security and the development of X continue to be in danger; ORDERS that X be entrusted to his foster family for six (6) months in order to clarify a live plan for him; ORDERS that the contacts be maintained between X and his mother; AUTHORIZES supervised contacts between X and Mr. B at the following conditions: - Mr. B does not see B besides the contacts that are scheduled with the social worker; - Mr.

B does not contact or communicate with the foster family, neither directly or indirectly; - Mr. B does not ask questions to X regarding his mother; - Mr. B is supportive of the school's and foster family's authority; - A supervisor who understands the language closely supervises the contacts. AUTHORIZES the D.Y.P. to suspend the contacts between X and Mr.

B at any time if these conditions are not respected; ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and his parents; ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the Inuulitsivik C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. M e Robert-André Adam Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Yan Massé Attorney for the child M e Angela Tommassel (by phone) Attorney for the mother M e Sarah Plamondon Attorney for Mr. B Date of hearing: February 28 th , 2012