2013 QCCQ 7883, 2013 QCCQ 7883

Protection de la jeunesse — 131361 2013 QCCQ 7883 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-026262-121; 525-41-026263-129; 525-41-026264-127 DATE : March 7 th , 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on […], 2002 Y , born on […], 2003 Z , born on […], 2007 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A, mother B, father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. , sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court, on August 22 nd , 2012, of the situation of X (10 years old), Y (then 8 years old) and Z (5 years old). The Director alleges that all three children have been submitted to psychological ill treatment (conjugal violence) and that X also exhibits behaviour disturbances.

At the conclusion of the hearing on March 7 th , 2013, the Director is asking that all three children remain entrusted to their mother, that the attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the father and that Youth Protection services be provided for a period of one year. [ 2 ] Although the father was present in Court in August and September of 2012, he was absent in January and March 2013. His lawyer was dully present and represented father's view on the situation.

Denying or ignoring most of the facts alleged by the Director in support of the motion, the father nonetheless agrees that Youth Protection services be provided to the mother and children. Due to his absence, the father, was not made aware of the request of the Director to withdraw from him the exercise of parental authority. On behalf of the father, his lawyer informed the Court that the father wishes to have unsupervised and unlimited access to his children. [ 3 ] Throughout the Court process, the mother has been in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. She has admitted some

of the facts alleged by the Director in support of the motion. She recognizes the need for Youth Protection services, agrees to collaborate with the Director and accepts the involvement of the Director for a period of one year. [ 4 ] On behalf of the children, the two attorneys involved, one for X, the other for Z and Y, have closely followed the Court process and made specific suggestions pertaining to the interim measures during the Court process.

Without making specific admissions regarding the facts alleged in support of the motion, both attorneys have given their consent to the recommendations presented by the Director as they felt the recommendations were in the best interest of their clients. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals the following. [ 6 ] The family is originally from [Country A] and arrived in Town A approximately ten years ago. In December 2010, following a serious dispute between the parents, the father left the family and the country and was mainly absent from his children's life until May 2012.

It is also in May 2012 that the parents finalized their divorce granting custody of the children to the mother and access rights to the father. [ 7 ] In December 2010, the mother was the victim of conjugal violence. X, then aged 8 years old, dialled 9-1-1 so that his mother, left on the kitchen floor gasping for air following the dispute, could be helped. [ 8 ] Since that incident and following the father's departure in December 2010, the mother has continued to receive services from the CLSC A. The worker then involved explained that until that moment she was under the impression that Mrs.

A did not speak English. During the meetings she had had previous to the departure of the father, Mrs. A was not allowed to talk. The mother was isolated and her only support were the workers from the CLSC. [ 9 ] Following his father's departure, X began to take over his father's role, telling his mother and siblings what they could and could not do and becoming physically, verbally and emotionally aggressive towards them.

The mother described that Y's reaction to X's aggressive outburst was to hide in a closet and hit herself. [ 10 ] Mother adds that when X becomes angry and aggressive, she at times blanks out and hides in the other room with Z and Y.

She has no control over X and she becomes overwhelmed and anxious. [ 11 ] Despite the fact that mother is receiving ongoing services from the CLSC workers providing her with support in dealing with her children, it is only on July 17 th , 2012, that the Director receives a signalement concerning X and on August 16 th , 2012, a signalement concerning Z and Y. [ 12 ] It is therefore only in the summer 2012 that the Director is made aware that all three children have been exposed to conjugal violence and that they still suffer the impact of said violence. [ 13 ] The evaluation of the signalements reveals the extent of the damages caused by the violence as well as the inability of the parents to protect their child of their conflicts. [ 14 ] X does not see his mother as an adult nor as an authority figure.

He believes his father is in charge of their home even if his father has been absent from December 2010 until May 2012. He considers his father as the only parent. In the absence of his father, he readily plays the role of authority. He does not accept that his mother tries to impose her authority on him. He does not feel his mother should discipline him as he does not need to be disciplined. According to the child, his mother cannot tell him not to touch his computer, as it is his. X admits to hitting and spitting on his brother.

The mother claims X has also punched his younger brother. [ 15 ] During the time the father was present in Quebec, from May until approximately November 2012, there were issues around father having contacts with his sons but not with Y. At the time, it seems that it was difficult for the father to have the three children with him during his weekend access to the children. Mr. B explained that his living arrangements were such that there was no room for Y to accompany them during the weekend.

As a result, the child reacted to being left behind while her brothers visited their father. [ 16 ] During the involvement of the Director, it became apparent that the mother had wished for a long time to be able to visit her ill mother in [Country A]. Discussions ensued as to who would care for the children during the mother's absence. As authorized by the Court, foster care placement was provided to X and Z during the mother's trip to [Country A].

Despite the Court order providing foster care placement for Y, the Director rather entrusted Y to a person known to the child. [ 17 ] Although the mother had more or less planned her journey to [Country A] , it is very abruptly that the Director was asked to place the children in foster care due to her leaving the country sooner than originally planned. In a similar way, the mother did not come back to Town A as agreed initially with the Director. On two occasions, the mother had to extend her stay in [Country A], leaving a lot of uncertainties around the exact date of her return.

Not only the Director was puzzled with her last minute changes of plans, but the children, at least X and Z, were somewhat distraught by the absence of their mother. [ 18 ] The mother's situation in Town A is one where she is isolated, living in a small basement apartment, alone to care for her children only with the support of the Director and that offered by the CLSC. [ 19 ] At the audience held in January 2013, the mother requested permission to leave Town A with her children to establish residence in Town B.

There, she claimed, she would have support from people from her community and she could find, for sure, the appropriate services for her children. [ 20 ] When asked if steps had been taken to ensure that Y would be receiving appropriate services regarding her autism, the mother had no answer. While the psychiatric assessment for X had been started, it had not yet been completed.

The mother felt there was no issue in leaving Town A right now as she thought all her difficulties would resolve themselves if she moved to Town B. [ 21 ] X's behaviour in school had been problematic ever since he had been made aware of his possible move to Town B. Also,

because of mother's plan to relocate in Town C, the Family Preservation services she was receiving came to an end. [ 22 ] It appears that the mother is trying really hard to improve her situation and that of her children. In doing so, she makes and shares plans with her children without taking the time to appropriately prepare the changes she would like to take place. [ 23 ] In March 2013, the mother's plans to move to Town B may be changed by the recent liaison she has established with a community organization offering services she may need. Mrs.

A now wishes to explore the different services while she still is in Town A. [ 24 ] The Court reminds the mother that, wherever she wishes to establish residence with her children, the Director will have to ensure that the support services she is seeking from the community or from members of her family, extended family or friends, are appropriated services.

Therefore, the mother will be expected to share with the Director the identity of those willing to provide their help and their support to the family. [ 25 ] The Director has clearly established that all three children have been exposed, for years, to conjugal violence and that the children still suffer from such exposure even if their parents no longer share the same residence.

It has also been established that neither parent has been in the position to protect the children from the conjugal violence and its consequences. [ 26 ] Concerning X, the evidence reveals that his behaviour undermined his mother's and siblings' physical and psychological integrity and, due to the inability of the parents to correct that situation, Y and Z have been subjected, seriously and repeatedly, to the behaviour of their older brother. [ 27 ] The Court invites the Director of Youth Protection, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], to look into the specific situation of the children in relation to the professional services the family has received, at least since 2010, from the CLSC.

The Court has been convinced by the Youth Protection worker testimony as well as by the documentary evidence, that the children have been subjected to psychological ill- treatment for years. Yet, contrary to

section 39 of Youth Protection Act, it is only in the summer of 2012 that the situation of the children was brought to the attention of the Director. [ 28 ] The measures suggested by the Director meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest. [ 29 ] AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are compromised; [ 31 ] AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the three (3) children to their mother's care; [ 33 ] ORDERS that frequency and modality of contacts between the father and the children be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if need be; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the exercise of the attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from Mr.

B; therefore, the mother will be the only one to exercise the attributes of parental authority; [ 35 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that Mr. B refrain from making any derogatory remarks or comments about Mrs.

A in the presence of the children; [ 37 ] ORDERS that both parents refrain from discussing adult issues with the children; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the children receive all health and care services, including specifically for X the assessment for Asperger's Disorder or Pervasive Developmental Disorder; [ 39 ] ORDERS that said assessment be done as quickly as possible within the next three (3) months; [ 40 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for one (1) year; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town A on March 14 th , 2013 _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois

Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Flexer Attorney for X Me François Parizeau Attorney for Y and Z Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the mother Me Daniel Bouchard Attorney for the father Date of hearing : September 19 th , 2012, January 17 th and March 7 th , 2013