2021 QCCQ 8111, 2021 QCCQ 8111

Protection de la jeunesse — 212577 2021 QCCQ 8111 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” Nos: 450-41-007846-208 450-41-007847-206 Date: February 17, 2021 PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A, whose offices are located at [...]; Applicant - and- X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2016 Children - and- A - and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1, and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks to intervene in the situation of X and Y because their parents expose them to conflicts and react inappropriately to their behaviour.

[ 2 ] Initially, the Director also asked to have the security and development of the children declared to be in danger on the ground of physical abuse because the father was using unreasonable methods of upbringing, but today the Director submits that the facts can just as well support a ground of educational neglect.

She has therefore agreed to withdraw the ground of physical abuse. [ 3 ] To remedy the situation, the Director recommends that the children be entrusted to the mother for the coming year and that supervised contact be maintained with the father while he learns how to better manage his emotions and becomes familiar with better methods of upbringing for his children. [ 4 ] The father admits that there have been conflicts in front of the children. He also knows that sometimes he raises his voice and yells.

That said, he still does not seem to realize that this tone, which for him is normal, may scare a 4-year-old child. However, the father acknowledges that if Y is displaying aggressive behaviour, it may be because he is mimicking what he sees. [ 5 ] The father affirms that he has now understood and is able to control his emotions. He asks to have supervision lifted and to be allowed to return gradually to live with the mother and the children.

He maintains that the visits with his children are positive and that the children miss him. [ 6 ] The mother agrees with the father. [ 7 ] After the evidence was presented, counsel for the children recommended an order of a shorter duration (6 months). At the end of this period, consideration could be given to the father’s return to the family home, provided he has made some progress. Counsel for the children submits that the lifting of supervision could be authorized in the coming months if the situation allows. ANALYSIS [ 8 ] The Court is happy to hear that the father acknowledges some of his difficulties.

This is a good first step. [ 9 ] The father admits that he has difficulty managing his stress. He says, “It’s eating me alive”. When asked whether this might have affected the children, the father acknowledges that after three warnings, he sometimes raises his voice. The Court questioned him further because it is normal to raise one’s voice after three warnings. The father reasserted that he raises his voice as the educators do at day care, nothing more. [ 10 ] By his answers, the father demonstrates that he acknowledges his difficulties but minimizes them.

The father does not seem to realize that when he manages his stress poorly, he becomes impatient and raises his voice sharply, enough to frighten Y. This is not what the educators do. They do not frighten Y. [ 11 ] The father may sometimes react impetuously when he and the mother are having a conflict. There is shouting and crying. These are not normal petty quarrels. Y is suffering from them. He lives in a climate of family violence, which is not healthy for him. [ 12 ] Y also says that his father threw a hard ball in his face. The father denies intentionally doing such an action.

With respect to Y’s claim that his father threw shoes at him, the parents say that it was not a shoe but a slipper. [ 13 ] Maybe, but this is not the most important point to note. What should be noted is that the child perceived the action as aggressive, as a loss of control that made him feel unsafe. The significance of a slipper should not be blown out of proportion, but the parents need to stop minimizing the father’s impulsive actions. [ 14 ] The mother has not been reassuring in this regard. Instead of asking the father to change before he is allowed to return to the home, she is now minimizing the facts.

She wants the father to return to live at the home so badly that what was serious yesterday is no longer so today. The mother says she regrets talking about her problems with the caseworker. Had she known, she says, she would not have said anything. Her children miss their father and the family unit is broken.

This is worse, in her view. [ 15 ] The Court can understand that the separation of the family is difficult to handle and is affecting the children in various ways, but the environment in which the children lived before the father’s departure was not a calm family environment. [ 16 ] The parents must acknowledge it without reservation and seek help. The mere passage of time will not resolve the problem. [ 17 ] The Court cautions the mother against magical thinking.

Experience reveals that the best intentions, even if sincere, are not enough to resolve such problems, without thorough work being done. [ 18 ] Fortunately, the father has taken steps in this regard with the A organization. So far, he has refused to allow the caseworker to have access to information on this follow-up support; however, the explanations the Court has given him have helped him to understand that the caseworker must be reassured about the progress he is or is not making.

Without this information, it will be difficult for her to move towards lifting the supervision of contact. [ 19 ] It is now necessary to ensure that the father maintains an appropriate attitude towards his children.

In this regard, during a supervised visit, Y spontaneously told his father that he was happy he had stopped hitting him. [ 20 ] The Court does not necessarily conclude that the father used to hit Y on a regular basis, but this certainly reflects the change that Y has seen in his father’s attitude. [ 21 ] This is therefore proof that the father is able to exercise better control. [ 22 ] This better control must now be maintained over time. [ 23 ] The mother will need the services of the B organization.

Domestic violence is not limited to acts of physical abuse by one’s spouse, but it also involves the control exercised by one spouse or even the spouse’s frightening tone. The mother should not continue to

accept this. [ 24 ] The Court therefore finds that more work remains to be done before thinking about reuniting the family on a full-time basis. [ 25 ] Meanwhile, as soon as workers from [A organization] inform the caseworker that the father is making progress and is sufficiently equipped to better control himself, supervision may be lifted. [ 26 ] Thereafter, the Court will allow the frequency and duration of the visits to be increased. [ 27 ] And if the situation evolves favourably over the next months, it will be possible to consider having the father spend days at home with his family, but not unless he agrees to report to the caseworker about the experience.

The Court believes that this would be a concrete and practical way to help the parents gradually return to a healthy family life. [ 28 ] However, it is difficult to say precisely when the parents and the children will be ready to spend more time together.

Ideally, if all goes well, the Court believes that the return to family life without shouting or conflict will be possible within six months, provided of course that each parent does his or her personal work and makes real and lasting changes. [ 29 ] The Court therefore asks the caseworker and the parents to work towards this goal. [ 30 ] Meanwhile, the measures proposed are in the interests of the children, but for a period of six months.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the present application for protection; DECLARES that the security and the development of X and Y are in danger in regards of a situation of psychological ill-treatment and of educational neglect; ENTRUSTS X and Y to their mother, excluding the father; AUTORIZES in the favor of the children, supervised contacts with their father, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth protection; AUTHORIZES to litf the supervision of the contacts between the children and their father, according to the evolution of the situation; AUTHORIZES if the situation allows-it that the father spend some time at the family house as long as the father follow-up the [A organization] or any other organisation is positive and that the mother follow-up for conjugal violence is also positive; ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security of development of the children is in danger; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely : -that the father participates in a personal assistance process to address the impulsuiveness and the use of violence in his conflicts; That the other is involved in a self-assertion aid; -that they collaborate to the development and implementation of the intervention plan; ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection of any changes in their personals situations; ORDERS that a person, working for the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and theirs parents for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out [1] . ___________________________________ Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q.

Mtre Idil Abdi

Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Mélissa Robert Counsel for the children Mtre Karine Pinette Counsel for the father Date of hearing: February 17, 2021