2019 QCCQ 4817, 2019 QCCQ 4817

Protection de la jeunesse — 194837 2019 QCCQ 4817 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001074-178; 455-41-001075-175; DATE : April 05, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2016 Y Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at [...]; Applicant -and- A , [...]; -and- B , [...]; Children’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). introduction [ 1 ] The present judgment comes at the end of an exceptionally long judiciary process following the Director’s demand for revision of a judgment in youth protection. [ 2 ] As the case unfolds on a period of 19 months and is full of surprising turnovers and ends in a completely unexpected way, the Court decides to render its decision under the form of a dramatic series, in order to maintain the interest of the readers and to give it a form that allows to understand the evolution of this family’s story.

The setting

[ 3 ] On September 6 th , 2017, the Court renders an order by which he declares that the security and development of the children were still compromised for the grounds of psychological ill-treatment and, regarding Y only, physical abuse. [ 4 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the children to their mother, excluding their father and under the condition that the mother reside with the maternal grandparents, ordered that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director, including the degree of supervision and authorized the lifting of the supervision, according to the evolution of the situation, along with other measures including a social follow up for a period of 6 months. [ 5 ] On October 16 th , 2017, the Director filed a Motion requesting that the order rendered a month ago already be revised. [ 6 ] Because of the alleged new facts, the Director recommended that the children be entrusted to their maternal grandparents, that the contacts with their mother be under the supervision of the Director and that he determine their frequency and modality, maintaining all other compatible measures rendered on September 6 th 2017. [ 7 ] The presence and position of the parties have varied throughout the process and the hearings, including many postponements, and even a reopening of the inquiry.

The final hearing was held on April 5 th , 2019. the plot [ 8 ] The continued situation of compromission was never contested. [ 9 ] The only issues presented to the Court pertained to the protective measures. [ 10 ] The questions evolved throughout the process and will be addressed along the present judgment. [ 11 ] The first part of this story unfolds from September 6 th , 2017 until the supposed final hearing on April 25 th , 2018. [ 12 ] The next part starts with the Director’s and the father’s requests to re-open the inquiry in the summer of 2018 and ends on April 5 th , 2019.

The stars: Y and X [ 13 ] At the beginning of this process, Y is 3 years old. He is an energetic expressive pre-schooler. [ 14 ] His development is normal, reaching all his milestones. [ 15 ] Nonetheless, he is a child who often needs to be reassured by the adults surrounding him. [ 16 ] He can be very clingy with his grandmother especially when she leaves the home. [ 17 ] He generally enjoys spending time with his parents and is sad when they leave. [ 18 ] X is not even one year old. She is a healthy baby also developing well. The leading characters [ 19 ] The mother is a young woman who suffers from anxiety.

Her main personal issue turns around receiving or not follow up for her mental health issue. [ 20 ] Her anxiety makes her want to control her environment.

She expresses wanting to do what she wants without constraint. [ 21 ] She is in conflict with the members of her family, particularly with her father. [ 22 ] Also, as she claims being the victim of conjugal violence, she participated in counselling session with [Centre A]. [ 23 ] Her relationship with the father is quite elusive. [ 24 ] Both parents have not been forthcoming about their relationship except at times, especially the father during the second period/season of the present saga. [ 25 ] It is very difficult to know what exactly is going on between them.

The facts, as they unfolded during the proceedings, showed more than ever this affirmation. [ 26 ] The father is [origin A]. He resides in City A. He also has family members living [in region A]. [ 27 ] He recognizes that he has anger issues which led him to hitting Y at the beginning of the Director’s intervention. [ 28 ] He has received follow up for this personal issue. [ 29 ] He also has a history of drug abuse.

When he uses, he can lack control of his aggressivity. [ 30 ] The maternal grandparents have been taking care of the children on and off since their birth and been constant in being able to answer the children’s needs.

[ 31 ] The maternal aunts, C and D, have also been involved in caring for their nephew and niece. [ 32 ] C lives nearby the maternal grandparents’ home and helps caring for the children on a regular basis. [ 33 ] D lives in the [Country A]. She is also involved in the children’s lives. She has even manifested her interest on caring for them on the long term. [ 34 ] There is also the paternal aunt, E who lives in City B [in region A]. She will play a leading role in the second season of this saga.

Part/season 1: The original revision process from September 2017 to April 2018 [ 35 ] During this period, the file came to Court not less than 8 times. [ 36 ] As a brief recap, let’s recall that the children have been under Youth Protection since March 2017. Their security and development were declared compromised by the Court on June 15 th , 2017 under

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act (hereinafter YPA) for psychological ill-treatment due to conjugal violence they witnessed and under

section 38 e) 1 YPA for Y who was subject to physical abuse by his father. [ 37 ] This situation was revised, as mentioned on September 6 th , 2017 by the Court and measures were prolonged. episode 1 (October 2017): the mother leaves with the children [ 38 ] Following the last Court Order, the children remained with their mother at the grandparents’ home until the end of September 2017. [ 39 ] At the time, the grandparents were reluctant to the children having visits with their father, particularly the grandfather. [ 40 ] The father lived in City C and the grandparents were asked to bring the children to City D for the supervised visits to occur. [ 41 ] The grandfather said that the father should make the effort to drive to City E where they lived. [ 42 ] The mother wanted for the visits to take place at the grandparents’ home. [ 43 ] This was refused by the Director as bearing too much potential for conflict to which the children could be exposed. [ 44 ] When the mother was informed that the solution retained was that the visits would alternate between the Director’s office in City D and City E, she stated being stressed by these visits and suggested that the father’s visit be diminished by half, only to occur once every two weeks. [ 45 ] She then continued stating that she still formed a couple with the father but that she was confused about the state of their relationship. [ 46 ] The contacts with the father were finally maintained to occur weekly and the mother was informed that she did not have to be present. [ 47 ] At the following visit, on September 26 th , 2017, Y was particularly sad when his father left. [ 48 ] On October 3 rd , 2017, the mother called to cancel the father’s next visit.

She claimed that he had gone to the [Country A] and was not allowed back into Canada. [ 49 ] This was later discovered as being a lie and a deception by the mother. [ 50 ] In fact, the father was informed that no charges would be pressed against him for the physical abuse against Y.

So nothing prevented him from coming back to Canada. [ 51 ] Contemporaneously, the mother left with the children, telling the grandparents that she was going to visit a friend for a few nights. [ 52 ] Neither the mother nor the grandparents informed the delegate of such a plan which the latter discovered by herself on October 11th. [ 53 ] The following day of this discovery, the delegate met with the mother at her friend’s apartment where she had been staying with the children for two weeks. [ 54 ] The mother expressed that she did not want to return to her parents’ home. [ 55 ] The mother asked to be allowed to live with her friend, Ms F, despite the Court order and despite the fact that she knew her friend’s children were in placement because of the Director’s intervention. [ 56 ] She found difficult to stay at her parents’ home, claiming they were controlling. [ 57 ] She was also having conflicts with her sisters as they were about to inform the DYP of her leaving with the children. [ 58 ] The delegate denied authorizing this and stated that it was against the Court order.

[ 59 ] The grandfather then informed the delegate that they received a Facebook message from Ms. F a few days before, mentioning that the mother had left with the children for a few days, sometime between October 6 th and 9 th .

She also mentioned that she allowed the children to see their father and also left the children with her to spend time with a male friend who happens to be the father himself. [ 60 ] The father confirmed later this information. [ 61 ] On October 13 th , 2019, the Director invoked Immediate Protective Measures to remove the children from the mother’s care and entrust them to the maternal grandparents. [ 62 ] When the delegate presented herself at Ms. F’s home to get the children, the mother resisted the intervention.

She cried and raised her voice in front of the children. [ 63 ] When she finally went outside with the children to bring them to the grandfather she told him he was a bad father. [ 64 ] The Director then seized the Court in revision and for provisional measures. [ 65 ] On October 16 th , 2017, the provisional measures hearing is postponed to October 18 th , in order for it to be held in City E. [ 66 ] In the meantime, with all the parties’ agreement, the Court ordered that the children be entrusted to their maternal grandmother and that the contacts with the mother be supervised. [ 67 ] The provisional hearing is again postponed to October 24 th at the mother’s request. [ 68 ] On that date, after hearing the evidence, the Court maintained the same measures ordered on October 16 th and set the hearing on final measures for December 6 th 2017. episode 2 (provisional order from October 24 th to December 6 th 2017): the children are with the grandparents and the parental couple have supervised visits [ 69 ] During that period of the time, the maternal aunt, C, who resides close to the maternal grandparent’s home, provided respite and caregiving support to the maternal grandparents. [ 70 ] The other maternal aunt, D, also comes to visit from the [Country A] and help with the children. [ 71 ] The children’s needs are met by their family. [ 72 ] At that time also, Aunt D expressed her interest in caring for the children and agreed to undergo a home study through protective services in the [Country A]. [ 73 ] The parents live together at the mother’s apartment in City C and they attend supervised visits which were generally positive. [ 74 ] They maintain that they are no longer a couple, although they live together.

The father mentions that he intends to return to live in the [Country A] should the children be entrusted to the mother.

Otherwise, the father intends to live in City C to be close to the children for visits. [ 75 ] The difficulty lied in reassuring Y when the visit was over but also when he asked questions as to when he could return home. [ 76 ] The parents would say things like: “ we want you home….[Social Worker 1] (the delegate) says no… ” [ 77 ] They would also make promises about the future even though they were asked not to do that. [ 78 ] Particularly the mother does not understand that prolonging goodbyes only make Y suffer more. [ 79 ] On November 21 st , 2017, such a situation lead to a scene where Y was disconsolate and the police was almost called to have the mother leave. [ 80 ] In the meantime, the mother is seeking to obtain a psychiatric assessment at the Director’s and the Court’s request. [ 81 ] The difficulties in obtaining such an evaluation will lead to the next episode. episode 3: (hearing of December 6 th, 2017): the parents present a united front [ 82 ] On December 6 th , 2017, the Director requests an interim order for the mother to be psychologically or psychiatrically assessed.

In the meantime, they recommend to maintain the children with the grandparents and supervised visits with the parents until the end of January 2018. [ 83 ] Both parents are present but only the mother is represented. [ 84 ] The mother contests these recommendations. She wants to have the children back in her care right away. She affirms that if the Court grants her demand, the father, who is currently living with her in City C, will move back to his home in the [Country A]. [ 85 ] The father supports the mother’s demand.

[ 86 ] The children’s lawyer agrees with the Director’s recommendations. [ 87 ] The Court hears the testimony of the delegate, the mother, the father and the grandfather. [ 88 ] During this hearing the mother is upset particularly during the grandfather’s testimony. Her relationship with her father is obviously still strained. [ 89 ] She mentions that her father was being controlling and abusive with her when she was younger and still is today. [ 90 ] It is clear that the mother has past unresolved issues about her relationship with her parents that still shows today.

In fact, she appears has being immature and like a teenager still struggling with her relation with her parents, particularly her father. [ 91 ] As such, she does not respect authority in all its forms, including the Court’s, since she did not respect the order rendered in September 2017. [ 92 ] She also has difficulty controlling her emotions. That is why Y reacts at the end of the visits: the child sees his mother crying and reacts to it. [ 93 ] The children’s lawyer mentions that the mother must be part of the solution if she wants to have her children back.

She has to be transparent and collaborative. [ 94 ] The Court needs to be informed of the mother’s mental state before going further and she agrees to be psychologically and psychiatrically assessed, even though she claims her doctor and other professionals involved do not see this as necessary. [ 95 ] She has been attending counselling sessions at [Centre A] to which she has been actively participating since August 2017. [ 96 ] The Court took notice that aunt C was to be evaluated to care for the children during the grandparents’ vacation in Barbados from February 4 th , to March 4 th , 2018. [ 97 ] Next hearing is set for March 7 th , 2018, hoping that the psychological and psychiatric assessment would be completed. episode 4: (January 31 st , 2018) mother distrusts her family to care for the children during the grandparents’ vacation [ 98 ] Before the date scheduled for the continuation of the hearing, the Court was seized again for accessory issues. [ 99 ] First of all, the Court is asked to decide who will take care of the children during the grandparents vacation. [ 100 ] The Director suggests that aunt D care for the children at the grandparents’ home with the help of aunt C. [ 101 ] The mother was against this plan.

She wants to care herself for the children with the help of aunt D at the grandparents’ home. [ 102 ] The Court is of the opinion that the mother’s plan is not in the children’s best interest. [ 103 ] The mother has not sufficiently progressed and was not yet assessed for her mental health issues. [ 104 ] There is also a possibility of conflict between the sisters and the grandmother and aunt D have serious reservations. [ 105 ] Furthermore, it would not make sense for the children to be full time with their mother and then return to supervised visits. [ 106 ] The Court entrusts the children to aunt D for the duration of the grandparents’ vacation. [ 107 ] Secondly, the Director alleges that the mother refuses to be psychiatrically evaluated. [ 108 ] In fact, the mother had not taken any steps to be psychiatrically evaluated until the day before this hearing. [ 109 ] She said she did not understand why she had to be psychiatrically evaluated. [ 110 ] She denied having refused.

But the evidence was to the effect that she had been reminded and offered help many times to have this evaluation done. [ 111 ] The real situation remains unsure. Nevertheless, her doctor had most recently referred her for a psychiatric assessment. [ 112 ] On the other hand, she has started to see a psychotherapist, Mrs.

Kathryn McCormick, to address her anxiety issue. [ 113 ] She has gone to 6 sessions and participated fully to this therapy, as per a letter produced by her therapist. [ 114 ] The father has been seeing a counselor as well since October 2017. [ 115 ] His therapist also submitted a letter stating that he underwent an assessment for mental health and addiction disorders. [ 116 ] Thirdly, the Director also asks the Court to be able to share information with some family members to evaluate an alternative plan for the children. [ 117 ] Namely, the Director asks to be able to communicate with the aunts: Ms.

E (paternal aunt in [Country A]), D, C, G and H (all mother’s sisters.).

[ 118 ] The Court does not allow for this, considering it to be premature at this moment. episode 5: (March 7 th 2018 hearing) the first draft of the mother’s psychiatric assessment [ 119 ] The mother finally submitted to a psychiatric assessment by Dre Carole Bélanger on February 28 th , 2018. [ 120 ] Unfortunately, the report was submitted only the day before the hearing. [ 121 ] Furthermore, this document, hand written on a medical consultation form of the hospital where Dre Bélanger works, is unreadable. [ 122 ] The Court also learns that Dre Bélanger did not have access to the reports from the Director that would informed her concerning the mother’s situation. [ 123 ] The Court has no choice but to postpone again the inquiry until April 25 th , 2018. episode 6: (April 25 th , 2018 hearing) second draft of the psychiatric assessment and yet another postponement [ 124 ] Dre Bélanger’s assessment has been transcribed but was only filed on the morning of the inquiry. [ 125 ] The Director also requests the presence of Dre Bélanger to answer questions about her assessment. [ 126 ] The hearing is to be continued on May 29 th , 2018. [ 127 ] Subsidiarily, the Director requests to obtain the children’s passport because the mother has refused to give them to the grandparents as she does not want them to leave with the children to visit their aunt D in the [Country A]. [ 128 ] The mother is resisting because she fears she will be deprived of visits with her children. [ 129 ] The Court grants the demand but limits the family trip to one overnight. [ 130 ] The Court notes that the mother is still in a control mode. episode 7: (May 29 th , 2018 presumed final Hearing) the father disappears [ 131 ] On May 29 th , 2018, the Court sits to hear the sequel of the evidence in this file. [ 132 ] The father is absent.

According to the mother’s information, the father had left for the [Country A]. [ 133 ] The Court proceeds in his absence, as he was fully aware of the date of the hearing and chose not to be present. [ 134 ] The Director modifies his initial recommendations.

They now read as follows: • That the children be entrusted to the foster home of their maternal grandparents until October 16 th , 2018. • That the Court take judicial notice that the Director will be establishing a permanent life plan for the children, at the exclusion of the parents. • That the frequency and modalities of the visits and contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director including the level and the need for supervision, with the possibility of lifting the supervision according to the evolution of the situation. • That the contacts between the children and their maternal aunt, Ms.

D, be encouraged. • That the grandparents be authorized to take the children to the [Country A], for up to two nights at a time, to spend time with Ms. D at her home. • That the Director be authorized to send and receive information from [Social Services A]. • That the Director also be authorized to communicate information with members of the maternal and paternal extended family, including the maternal siblings, the maternal grandparents and the paternal great aunt, Ms.

E. • That the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, as it pertains to applying for passport, authorizations to travel outside the country and providing basic healthcare and medical care to the children, be withdrawn from the parents. • That the maternal grandparents, Ms. I and Mr.

J be authorized to exercise the said attributes of parental authority. • That a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment of body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the Children and their family until October 16 th , 2018, and that the situation of X and Y be entrusted to the DYP to see that the measures are carried out. [ 135 ] The mother is still represented and wishes to obtain the children’s custody and keep her parental attributes. Globally, she disagrees with all the Director’s recommendations. The fluctuating status of the parents’ relationship

[ 136 ] The Director had filed 3 reports to cover the full period between the last order and the current hearing. [ 137 ] We will not here summarize every moment reported by the delegate, but highlight some that pertained to the parent’s couple situation which had many ups and turns, which led to the father’s absence on that hearing day. [ 138 ] Up until the end of November 2017, the parents were not a couple. [ 139 ] At some point in early winter 2017-2018, they became a couple again. [ 140 ] Then, they started to have more trouble. [ 141 ] The delegate reported that on February 6 th , 2018, the parents came to her, after a supervised visit to help them resolve a dispute between them. [ 142 ] The source of the dispute was not clear.

The mother was saying she was tired of being mistreated by the father without specifying how, and she was refusing to drive him back to her home in City C. [ 143 ] The father had no other place to stay nor any other mean of transport.

He reported that the mother had recorded him while they were arguing and planned to use it against him. [ 144 ] He also mentioned tensions between them and not being sure that they would remain as a couple. [ 145 ] The delegate managed that situation and the couple returned home with the instruction not to speak to one another in the car. [ 146 ] On February 22 nd , 2018, a review meeting was held. [ 147 ] The parents refused to speak about concurrent planning for the children. The mother stuck to her position of having the children returned to her care.

Although she admitted that her sister D was a good mother. [ 148 ] She also stressed refusing for the children to remain in her parents’ care, stating that they were not able to answer the children’s needs without being able to specify how so. She most emphasized on the fact that she had been the subject of physical abuse by her father when she was a child. [ 149 ] The father has a contradictory version. At first, he expressed that he was committed in having the family reunited and trying to apply to Immigration Canada.

Then he said that his relationship with the mother was not going well and that there were ongoing conflicts and tensions. [ 150 ] That is when both parents said that their couple relationship had come to an end. Again. [ 151 ] After this, the clinical discussion got to another orientation asking the father if he would be interested in caring for the children alone. Questions were asked to the parents in terms of their future which they could not answer and maximum duration of placement was explained to them. [ 152 ] The review was not conclusive.

They were also still waiting for the mother’s psychiatric evaluation. [ 153 ] While this was going on, the parents remained in some kind of a relationship or rekindled as the sequel of the story unfolds. [ 154 ] In April 2018, the Director obtained some upsetting information. [ 155 ] A cat, belonging to the parents, was left by the mother in a box for 3 days. The “air holes” had been covered.

The father discovered the cat in bad conditions and the poor animal died shortly after. [ 156 ] At least this is the version that the Court has retained of the story for which every person involved had a version. [ 157 ] The mother tried to convince the delegate and the Court that she had released the cat in the woods, claiming that the animal was getting more attention from the father than she did. [ 158 ] To be noted, at this hearing the maternal grandfather testified that he believed her daughter’s side of the story.

It seemed to the Court that he was trying to regain her daughter’s trust more than anything else. [ 159 ] Although the Court does not retain the mother’s version of the event, the Court is quite upset by the mother’s explanation to get rid of the cat. [ 160 ] The father then reported that he was so disturbed by this situation that he was considering leaving the relationship. [ 161 ] Nonetheless, it seems the father was under the mother’s spell.

A few days after the incident, he started to minimize what happened. [ 162 ] This incident had a ripple effect on the children. [ 163 ] On April 4 th , the father cancelled the visit, being too upset about the cat incident. [ 164 ] On April 10 th , the mother cancelled the visit, claiming the father’s late work schedule. [ 165 ] On the visits that took place afterwards, the father, though appropriate and caring with the children, seemed tired and

preoccupied. [ 166 ] The interactions between the parents were minimal and the mother seemed oblivious of the father’s emotional state. [ 167 ] The father’s last visit with the children was on April 25 th , 2018. [ 168 ] He was absent at all 4 visits with the children in May. [ 169 ] He also stopped communicating with the delegate. [ 170 ] On May 16 th , 2018, the mother informed the delegate that the couple had separated.

She stated that the father left his job and was returning to live in the [Country A]. [ 171 ] When asked if the father would continue visiting his children, the mother replied by the negative. [ 172 ] She said without emotion that she had suggested one last visit to say goodbye to the children, but that the father had refused. [ 173 ] All this was later discovered to be a lie. In fact, this would have been be very uncharacteristic from the father.

But at the time, he was not present in court to give his version of the events. [ 174 ] The delegate also reported that the mother seemed insensitive to the effect of the father’s disappearance in the children’s life. [ 175 ] Although many attempts were made to reach the father after that, he did not call back the delegate nor did he present himself at the review meeting held on May 22 nd , 2018. [ 176 ] The children have been asking about their father.

Especially Y who is not satisfied by his mother’s vague explanations. [ 177 ] The boy is reacting to his father’s absence by competing during the visits for his mother’s attention.

The mother is struggling to set limits to Y while continuing to give some attention to her daughter. [ 178 ] Also, she has been talking to Y about her home environment and where the children used to play, sending some messages to the child that he would be returning home to her. [ 179 ] When the delegate addressed this issue with the mother, she was not able to understand the impact of giving the child false hope as the decision from the Court was not yet known.

Parental consent issues [ 180 ] The Director provided evidence to the Court that the mother’s consent was very difficult to obtain. [ 181 ] She did not collaborate in giving Y’s passport when needed, did not reveal that X did not have one nor wanted to sign forms for her to get one. [ 182 ] She also had difficulties to give consent for the children seeing their doctor (pedopsychiatre) and to provide with their medicare card. [ 183 ] This caused delays in the children having their needs met at those levels. the psychiatric assessment [ 184 ] The Court heard the testimony of Dre Bélanger. [ 185 ] From the start, the psychiatrist mentioned that she had seen this patient under constraint which, she said, impacted on her evaluation. [ 186 ] The patient tried to present herself at her best instead of being engaged in the evaluation process. [ 187 ] During her first meeting, the mother only spoke of her relationship with her parents. [ 188 ] She spoke of her past and of her opposing behaviour when she was young which is maintained today as she resists when someone forces her to do something. [ 189 ] The psychiatrist had very limited access to the information, only what the mother gave her. [ 190 ] Nonetheless, she was able to come to a diagnosis. [ 191 ] Her report from the assessment done on February 23 rd , 2018 concluded that the mother suffers from social phobia and presents no other psychiatric pathology that could affect her judgment or her capacity to function in society. [ 192 ] The social phobia is some form of anxiety that affects the mother’s social and professional functioning. [ 193 ] She suggested that the mother continue a therapeutic follow up in order to help her with the anxiety that causes the Director’s involvement in her life. [ 194 ] No other treatment was recommended.

She would have referred her to group therapy but because of her social anxiety, the

mother was not a good candidate for that. [ 195 ] She also filed a complimentary report following another meeting with the mother on April 23 rd , 2018. [ 196 ] At that time, she presented with general anxiety and insomnia, anticipating the Court’s decision. [ 197 ] Dre Bélanger maintained her recommendation to continue with her therapist. [ 198 ] She would have recommended some medication but the mother was unwilling to take any. [ 199 ] Dre Bélanger was very reluctant to read the Director’s reports and said it does not change her diagnosis in any way. [ 200 ] She emphasized on the fact that she did not assess the mother’s parental capacity, but said that in terms of psychiatric diagnosis, they are not severe enough to justify taking the children from the mother. [ 201 ] She mentioned not having seen any symptoms of borderline personality. [ 202 ] She further explained that her anxiety can have the following effect on the mother: she can avoid situations that create such anxiety, anticipates catastrophic scenarios, or be angry at situations that makes her anxious. [ 203 ] The court also heard the mother’s testimony. [ 204 ] She did not seem well, but anxious and nervous. [ 205 ] She said that “ her mind was cloudy ”. [ 206 ] She made great emphasis on the fact that her relationship with the father was toxic and that there was a lot of conflict. [ 207 ] She also mentioned that she protected the father a lot and that his leaving was his decision. [ 208 ] She also told her version of the story about the times when she did not respect the Court order or the delegate’s instructions. [ 209 ] When she does, her explanation is always that things were unclear or that she did not understand what she could or could not do. [ 210 ] In fact, the Court understands from the whole evidence that the mother reacts to instructions by opposition and does not comply with anyone who stands in her way and prevents her from doing what she wants, even the court. [ 211 ] This being said, the evidence also showed that the mother deals better with her anxiety than before, thanks to her therapists advice.

Thus she is now able to drive her own car, for example. [ 212 ] But she is still unaware of the effects on the children when she opposes herself to the Director’s requests, like when she is asked not to make promises to them about the future. [ 213 ] In fact, when asked, she does not seem to have any idea about what her children’s needs are in terms of stability and development. [ 214 ] Having heard all the evidence and the pleadings, the Court took the case under advisement. [ 215 ] While the Court was analysing the evidence so far, he came to the finding that the mother is quite self-centered and immature for her age. [ 216 ] This made it very difficult for her to put aside her own needs to answer her children’s. [ 217 ] Furthermore, since the mother had no other psychiatric diagnosis than anxiety, it appeared that her acts were willful. [ 218 ] A psychological follow up seemed to be the only option for the mother to grow and become an adult, psychologically. season 2: the father returns episode 1: reopening the inquiry [ 219 ] Before the Court could render its judgement, the father resurfaced. [ 220 ] On July 4 th , 2018, the Director asked the re-opening of the inquiry. [ 221 ] In his Motion the Director alleged that on June 18 th , 2018, the delegate received a phone call from the father requesting a meeting which was held on June 27 th over the phone, as the father was in the [Country A]. [ 222 ] The father started to explain that he had concluded a “pact” with the mother for the sake of their relationship. [ 223 ] According to the father, he made a deal to disappear, not to appear in Court on May 29 th , and the couple would see each other over weekends.

Then, when the mother would get the children, they would flee together and reunite to form a family. [ 224 ] The father said that after thoughts, he had decided instead to end his relationship with the mother.

[ 225 ] The father also confessed as to the real state of his relationship with the mother.

He said that there had been verbal and physical violence from both sides, that the mother had a lot of control over him over the years and isolated him from his family and friends, and that she had blackmailed him. [ 226 ] The father also claimed that he was worried that the mother would take the children and leave with them. [ 227 ] He also asked to have visits with the children. [ 228 ] When the mother learned about the father’s request to see the children, she took the car with the father’s passport in it. [ 229 ] The father was now unable to cross border because the mother was retaining his passport.

He actually had to get a new one. [ 230 ] The hearing on these new facts was set for September 14 th , 2018. episode 2: the father gets representation [ 231 ] In the meantime, on August 28 th , 2018, the father also presents with a motion to re-open the inquiry. [ 232 ] In this lengthy application, he tells his version of the story from the very beginning of his relationship with the mother. [ 233 ] He depicts the mother as being extremely controlling, obsessed with his every move. [ 234 ] He said that when he resisted her demands she threatened to self-harm or take her own life. [ 235 ] He goes into details about the tale of his marital and family life. [ 236 ] The father also intended to file, amongst other documents, a psychological assessment that he underwent with Dr.

Hubert Van Gijseghem. [ 237 ] As this report was having a big impact on the Director’s position, the latter asked for a postponement of the hearing to have a new review meeting and revise his recommendations. episode 3: waiting for the final hearing [ 238 ] The mother agreed to the postponement and objected to the filing of a few documents among which the report from Ms.

Doubleday and emails and text messages from her and the application for Divorce that the father wanted to file at the same time as his Motion to reopen the youth protection hearing. [ 239 ] On September 14 th , 2018, the Court circumscribes the issues as to the facts that happened since the last Court order, in September 2017.

The Court takes judicial notice of the admission of certain documents filed as evidence by the father. [ 240 ] The Court postpones the hearing and sets it pro forma on November 8 th , 2018. [ 241 ] On that date, the Tribunal handles the next court hearing that is set for January 11 th , 2019. [ 242 ] In the meantime, the Court allows supervised visits with each parent and the father to take the children to the [Country A] to visit with their paternal great aunt if the evaluation by [Social Services A] is positive to do so. [ 243 ] A few days before the next hearing, the mother lost her counsel.

Twice. [ 244 ] On January 11 th , 2019, the last lawyer she consulted asked to be withdrawn from the file since the situation was too complex. [ 245 ] In the light of this highly conflictual situation, the Court agreed to postpone one last time to April 5 th , 2019 to allow for the mother to be represented. [ 246 ] The Court had also rendered a provisional order as to the father’s right to bring again the children to his great aunt’s place in [region A] to which the mother was objecting and the fact that the maternal grandparents wanted to bring the children to see their maternal aunt in the [Country A]. [ 247 ] The mother also requested to have the children with her while the maternal grandparents were on vacation in Barbados, like they did the year before. [ 248 ] The Court was able to see that the mother was still trying to keep control of the situation, objecting to what was asked of her and to agree for the benefit of her children. [ 249 ] The process of growing up had not started yet. [ 250 ] This is what the Court ordered on January 11, 2019: « ENTRUSTS the children Y and X to a foster home, namely in the foster family of their maternal grandparents, Mrs.

I and Mr. J; ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director;

AUTHORIZES the Director to reinstate the supervision of contacts, if the situation requires it; AUTHORIZES the Director to send and receive information from [Social Services A]; WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, as it pertains to the children’s passports and travel and AUTHORIZES the Director to exercise these attributes ; MAINTAINS the withdrawal of the attributes of parental authority from the parents in terms of healthcare needs and MAINTAINS the authorization to the maternal grandparents to exercise those attributes of parental authority; TAKES NOTICE that the maternal grandparents will be away in Barbados from February 16 th , to March 17 th , 2019; TAKES NOTICE that the maternal grandparents have made plans for the maternal aunts C or D to take care of the children during this period; TAKES NOTICE also of the intention of the Director to allow extended access to both parents if the situation allows it; » episode 4: about what happened in [region A] and the evolution of father’s situation and rekindling with the children [ 251 ] The Court later discovered that it was the great aunt, E (later named Ms.

E), that helped the father to fight back and provide him with the financial means to hire an attorney and undergo a psychological evaluation. [ 252 ] The objective of the father was to regain custody of his children. [ 253 ] In July 2018, the father had actually moved in Ms. E’s home. [ 254 ] On September 5 th , he underwent a psychological assessment.

Dr Van Gijseghem assessed the father as being “ a person with important dependant personality traits, possibly on the level of a disorder .” [ 255 ] He stated that the father lacked autonomy and needed the support of a trusted person. [ 256 ] He did not diagnose any other psychopathology nor the propensity for violence or impulsivity. [ 257 ] He concluded by stating that there were no personality dimension usually interfering with parenting. [ 258 ] The father participated in weekly therapy with a mental health counselor in [Country A], Ms. Marie T.

Doubleday. [ 259 ] He worked on managing his anger, preventing relapse of drug consumption and addressing prior trauma. [ 260 ] Ms. Doubleday states that, while the father is able to maintain his distance with the mother, he does not present with anger or volatility. [ 261 ] He attended workshops for fathers in the [Country A]. [ 262 ] He has also participated to NA meetings regularly. [ 263 ] He informed the Director that the children had double citizenship and could easily live in the [Country A]. In fact, Y has a Canadian passport and X an [Country A] one.

This information was withheld from the Director up until that point. [ 264 ] The first supervised visit with the children after 11 weeks of absence took place on July 12 th , 2018. [ 265 ] Y was visibly happy to see his father again but X showed signs of confusion and cried. The father was successful in engaging with her and she consoled herself and played with her father. [ 266 ] Ms. E pledged her commitment to actively support the father and her willingness to care for the children, even on a long term basis. [ 267 ] In December 2018, she submitted to a Home Study.

The assessment was positive as the home was declared adequate to receive the children during the Holidays. [ 268 ] On their second visit to their great aunt’s home, a social worker from International services assessment saw the father in interaction with the children. [ 269 ] The children were busy with age appropriate activities and the worker could see the signs of their earlier breakfast. [ 270 ] The children were observed as being comfortable with their father and the worker. [ 271 ] They went to their father for reassurance when needed. [ 272 ] Y was very comfortable showing the worker his room and the rest of the family’s. [ 273 ] Both children appeared to be following their father’s directions and listened to him when he set limits. [ 274 ] Another home assessment was done on March 16 th , 2019.

This time Ms. E was also present.

[ 275 ] It was also very positive.

The children identified the residence as being their house, feling some attachment to the place. [ 276 ] Both children appeared well developed groomed and comfortable with their father. [ 277 ] She concluded by saying: “ The father’s engagement level and attentiveness to the needs of each child remained consistent throughout the visit as well as since the prior visit in February ”. episode 5: the reactions of the mother to the father’s turnover [ 278 ] The mother continued to participate in the supervised visits. [ 279 ] She re-connected with some members of her family. [ 280 ] She moved to City F on October 1 st , 2018 in order to be closer to the children and her family. [ 281 ] She then required that her address be confidential to the father. [ 282 ] But she stopped her therapy with Ms.

McCormick. [ 283 ] Her rigidity and need to control situations and people are still present. [ 284 ] As the delegate presents it, it causes her to be at times highly unreasonable and prevents her from examining her thoughts and behaviours. episode 6: the father’s surprising capitulation [ 285 ] Two days before the hearing date, the undersigned received a letter from the father’s counsel advising that they will no longer represent him, through revocation of mandate. [ 286 ] On April 5th, 2019, the father is present in Court without his lawyer and affirms he will represent himself. [ 287 ] He does not want a postponement and supports all of the mother’s demands among which of course having the children back with her. [ 288 ] Although he does not intend to present evidence for his allegations, he accepts to file his Exhibits, except for the emails and text messages from the mother that the Director files. [ 289 ] The Director presents with the following recommendations: « TO ENTRUST the children Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection for their foster care, namely in the foster family of their maternal grandparents, Mrs.

I and Mr.

J, until August 30 th , 2019; TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTIC E that the Director of Youth Protection will clarify a permanent life plan for the Children; TO ORDER that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; TO AUTHORIZE the Director of Youth Protection to reinstate the supervision of contacts, if the situation allows it; TO AUTHORIZE the Director of Youth Protection to send and receive information from [Social Services A]; TO WITHDRAW from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, as it pertains to the children’s passports, travel and healthcare needs; TO DESIGNATE the maternal grandparents to exercice parental authority regarding health care needs; TO DESIGNATE the Director of Youth Protection to exercise parental authority regarding passports and travel needs; TO ORDER that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children, X and Y, and their family until August 30 th , 2019; TO TAKE NOTICE that the father states he will facilitate contacts between the children and Mrs.

E; TO AUTHORIZE the Director to communicate with Mrs.

E and D; TO ORDER that the contacts between the children and their father be supervised by the Director or a third party designated by the Director, according to the modalities and the frequency determined by the Director; TO AUTHORIZE the possibility of lifting the supervision of contacts if the situation allows it;» [ 290 ] The parents testified that they met a week ago and started to mend their differences including the ones about the children. [ 291 ] They both recognize that their relationship was toxic. [ 292 ] Father said that he initiated a conversation with the mother and went to the mother’s apartment (address no longer confidential),

and had a lengthy conversation with her. [ 293 ] He said that his plan to live [region A] has changed. [ 294 ] The father testifies to the fact that he had been under the influence of his aunt and to his financial obligations towards her. [ 295 ] He said that he felt unduly influenced and wished now that the children be returned to their mother. [ 296 ] The mother is suddenly of the opinion that the children should not be deprived of their father. Despite everything she had said before about the father being potentially violent, dangerous, and abusive, that he meant nothing to the children.

It seemed that she had a change of heart… overnight. [ 297 ] She said that she was happy that he was supporting her to get custody and that he had made changes that she had not seen before. [ 298 ] But then the evidence got to another twist and turn. [ 299 ] The mother said weeks before that the father was still consuming and that she would prove it. [ 300 ] The father admitted that she had seen a transaction in their joint bank account and that he was using marijuana again. [ 301 ] The mother then went on to say that it was ok because he was only using occasionally and that it was normal despite the fact that up until that moment, the mother always disapproved the father’s drug consumption and was alarmed by it [ 302 ] The delegate further testified that Ms.

E forward her one of the mother’s numerous texts as of last week, which had a particular message in it. [ 303 ] After complaining that the last long visit during school break was too long as she missed 2 weekends of visits, the mother goes on to ask that the father bring back the children earlier than planned and she concludes like this: “ If he wants to keep the money, I want the children back by Friday… if not I have papers that I will be sending proving he’s lying …please tell him that.

He needs to contacts me …he will know what this is about….I’m sure he kept you in the dark about this … ” [ 304 ] Needless to say the delegate and the Court are extremely concerned about what is going on between the parents. [ 305 ] The Court then questioned the mother to know what this was about. [ 306 ] The mother was embarrassed, asked if she had to answer the question and said she did not want to put the father in jeopardy by revealing some information. [ 307 ] She asked for a break to consult with her lawyer which the court granted her. [ 308 ] When she came back from the suspension, after having spoken to her lawyer, the mother finally states that she promised she wouldn’t tell that the father was receiving family allowance in the [Country A] illegally because he did not have custody of the children. [ 309 ] The Court continued hearing the evidence and after receiving the parents’ and the delegate’s testimonies, heard the pleadings. [ 310 ] The children’s lawyer emphasized that neither parent could be trusted anymore. [ 311 ] He said he was not optimistic about the possibility for the mother to regain custody of her children and asked that they remain entrusted to the maternal grandparents. [ 312 ] He was also of the opinion that supervision of the contacts with the parents be maintained and that the maternal grandparents should continue to have parental authority to consent for travel and health issues. episode 7 : the final decision [ 313 ] The Court rendered the decision on the bench. [ 314 ] The Court expresses how disappointing it is that the father did not live up to the expectations.

With all the efforts that he made, the Court was expecting him to stand for his rights towards the children, all in their best interest. [ 315 ] The Court underlines that the evaluation written by Dr. Van Gijseghem was right on. The father has parental capacities but he also has an important emotional dependence issue that he must address.

This is what led him here today. [ 316 ] The father shows good introspection when he says that he has transposed the relationship that he had with the mother, which he feels he is now having with his aunt, E. [ 317 ] The Court sees him connecting the dots, but also making the wrong choices like today. [ 318 ] As for the reason for which the visits of the father with the children should still be supervised it is not for lack of parental capacity. [ 319 ] The Court underlines the reports from the [Country A], and the delegate’s testimony to the effect that he is a super dad with the kids who are comfortable with him. [ 320 ] It is not even because of the evidence pertaining to Y having said that his father hurt him.

[ 321 ] The Court believes that the verbalizations of Y concern past events. [ 322 ] Furthermore, as these verbalisations were not made to the worker or in the presence of the Director but reported by the maternal family, the Court even doubts that they happened at all. [ 323 ] So, the reason why the Court is ordering that the father’s visits have to still be supervised is because of the role that the mother is playing in his life. [ 324 ] It will have to be clarified what exactly is the deal here between the parents. [ 325 ] The Court does not believe the mother’s explanation about the parental alimony in the [Country A].

There is something else that the parents are not transparent about. [ 326 ] The mother cannot be trusted in this as she has lied to Court so many times and the explanation seem to be too weak to justify the father’s turnover. [ 327 ] Furthermore, as mentioned, the father had already said that the mother blackmails him from time to time. [ 328 ] In fact, the evidence supports that there seems to be some kind of blackmail around money issue by the mother on the father.

The latter admitted to having debts. [ 329 ] This being said, the Court also has to analyse the mother’s personal situation. [ 330 ] On the positive side, the mother seems healthier today. The therapy that she has going through must be helping her. [ 331 ] The therapy is good, but Ms. [Social Worker 1] said it, it would be only as good as what mother tells the therapist. So if the mother is speaking about her relationship with the father at the time where it was so bad, she will progress with that and she has.

But if she is not telling everything about the difficulties her anxiety causes in her relationship with her children, then the therapist can’t help her on that level. [ 332 ] The therapist has to be aware of what is going on, what are the issues with the children. The mother should allow the delegate to communicate with her. [ 333 ] In fact, the Court is worried that the mother is ready to do or say anything to have the children with her.

As she just did in her “deal” with the father. [ 334 ] The Court feels that she has to progress much more before being allowed unsupervised visits. [ 335 ] First of all, the Court needs to trust that she will not leave with the children. [ 336 ] Secondly, the Court is concerned about her relationship with her son. There seems to be a sort of a fusional relationship between the mother and Y.

Sleeping with a five-year-old child can be ok exceptionally following nightmares or for other special reasons, but not every night for no valid reasons. [ 337 ] Furthermore, the Court thinks that it is not normal for a child to be worried each time the mother leaves for the bathroom. [ 338 ] It seems like the child, who is an emotional sponge, absorbs the anxiety of the mother, and Y mirrors his mother’s anxiety. [ 339 ] Right now, the Court does not trust the mother at all.

Not with all that has been going on with her during the last 18 months and all that she said about the father and that she is now taking back, and her numerous lies and manipulation. [ 340 ] The mother has to start being really transparent to be trusted again. the cliff-hanger [ 341 ] What is the deal between the mother and the father? What made the father renounce after his family invested so much money in lawyer fees, psychological evaluation by a prominent expert and after he himself invested so much of his energy and time to get his children back? [ 342 ] Secrets remain between them.

Unfortunately, this means that the Court can trust neither of them. [ 343 ] The mother’s state of mind and intention worry the Court who must protect the children from their conniving and deceitful mother and from their weakened father who obviously still needs therapy to overcome his dependence on other people, especially the mother. [ 344 ] During the present Court order, the Director will have to figure out the permanent life plan for these children who can no longer wait for their parents to resolve their issues. [ 345 ] The present judgement completes and confirms each and every observations that were made on the bench in presence of the parties.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: PARTIALLY GRANTS the present application;

DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y, are in danger regarding: For Y: • 38 e) 1̊ physical abuse; For both children: • 38 b) 2̊ serious risk of neglect; • 38

c) psychological ill-treatment REVISES the Court order rendered on September 6, 2017 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the children Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection for their foster care, namely in the foster family of their maternal grandparents, Mrs. I and Mr.

J, until August 30 th , 2019; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection will clarify a permanent life plan for the Children; ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, that they be supervised by the Director or a third party designated by the Director, and that the supervision of the contacts be lifted if the situation allows it; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to send and receive information from [Social Services A]; WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, as it pertains to the children’s passports, travel and healthcare needs; DESIGNATES the maternal grandparents to exercise parental authority regarding health care needs; DESIGNATES the Director of Youth Protection to exercise parental authority regarding passports and travel needs; AUTHORIZES the Director to communicate with Mrs.

E and D, as soon as possible; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children, X and Y, and their family until August 30 th , 2019; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Marie-Pier Trépanier Counsel for the DYP M e René Sévigny Counsel for the children M e Anne Gervais-Corbin Counsel for the mother Date of written judgment : August 2, 2019 Exhibits deposited : D-2, D-10 to D-18, M-5 to M-8