2018 QCCQ 19960, 2018 QCCQ 19960

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811228 2018 QCCQ 19960 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005400-17 4 760-41-005401-172 DATE: June 22, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on [...], 2012 Y, born on [...], 2014 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT [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 ] On November 9, 2017, the Court determines that the security and the development of the siblings X and Y are in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment stemming from domestic violence in the family environment.

Recognizing that the parents make substantial efforts to deal with the various issues relating to their dynamic as well as their parental responsibilities, the Court entrusts the children to their care while applying various protective measures for one year. [ 2 ] Concurrently, the Court renders a similar order as concerns their half-sister Y. [ 3 ] Alleging a renewed degeneration of the family dynamic, the Director of Youth Protection applies for the revision and extension of this order.

While requesting that the children remain in the care of their mother and see their father under supervision, the Director seeks the pursuit of other protective measures for another six months. [ 4 ] The parents as well as the children’s attorney, through her legal mandate, subscribe to the evaluation and orientation proposed. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] The Court cites the foundation of its last decision as relates to the protective measures in force: [35] The Court concludes that it is possible to effectuate the rehabilitation of the conjugal and family dynamic, with the accompaniment and structure of such services.

The parent’s commitment to change and recognition of their children’s needs convince the Court that this process can continue while the children remain in their care. [36] Notwithstanding, the past history demonstrates that numerous elements of precariousness remain.

Not only must there be rehabilitation of the parent’s capacities, the durability of the changes must also be promoted, requiring monitoring of the family environment to verify the parent’s ability to integrate the tools put in place, but to also maintain a healthy family environment for their children and prioritize their needs. [ 7 ] Since the last order, the parents collaborate with the Director as well as with the various services put in place to support the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment and ensure a serene family dynamic.

[ 8 ] Despite this, the children continue to be witness to violence and conflicts in the family home. [ 9 ] On March 8, 2018, an incident of domestic violence occurs in the home, implicating both parents. Ten days later, Y leaves a note in her school bus stating that her and her siblings are physically abused by her step-father, while relating the incident of her mother being pushed to the ground and punched in the leg. [ 10 ] The same day, she verbalizes to her school principal wishing that her stepfather would stop being abusive. [ 11 ] The mother subsequently takes the children to reside in a shelter.

Her cooperation with the caseworker ceases and when the police authorities communicate with her by phone, she denies the allegations of physical abuse by the father. [ 12 ] The father eventually faces criminal accusations in relation to this incident. A prohibition of contacts is in place with Y and her mother. The mother returns to the family home with the children. [ 13 ] On March 22, 2018, the Court renders a provisional order entrusting the children to their mother and forbidding contacts with their father.

The mother undertakes legal proceedings seeking custody of the children. [ 14 ] On May 18, the Court revises the provisional measures in order to allow supervised contacts between the children and their father. [ 15 ] The children now reside with their mother. They verbalize missing their father, but appreciating that there are no longer any conflicts. They continue to receive various services related to the situation of endangerment. [ 16 ] The father sees his children twice a week under the supervision of their paternal grandmother.

The case worker testifies that the grandmother is fully aware of her obligations as a supervisor and is collaborative. Drop in visits are also intended. [ 17 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court concludes that there remains a situation of endangerment requiring the application of protective measures. [ 18 ] The parent’s relationship is chronically unstable, with the children continually suffering this cyclical dysfunctional dynamic.

The parent’s complex personal histories remain a significant impediment to their ability to deal in a healthy manner with personal or family challenges. [ 19 ] Intense services and the parent’s implication have until now, been insufficient to stem the renewal of violence and crisis in the family environment. [ 20 ] The father shows the greatest challenge in regards to his personal issues (anger management, dependency, mental health).

He declares being open to receiving services and accompaniment, but it is necessary to reflect that this is a recurrent situation which, up until now, resists durable change despite the repeated recourse to services. This permits the Court to conclude that the fundamental issues have yet to be fully addressed. [ 21 ] The children have the right to live and develop in a healthy and serene environment, which is not presently possible while maintaining the dysfunctional parental dynamic.

The mother has shown herself to be protective following the last incidence of domestic abuse, but such is mitigated by the fact that she failed to denounce the incident, such being, once again, revealed by Y.

Her transparency remains therefore questionable and the pursuit of measures equally pertinent in order to verify her ability to preserve her children on a durable basis. [ 22 ] As such, the Court endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the children's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 23 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the applications for extension of a Court decision; [1] REVISES AND EXTENDS the order rendered on November 9, 2017; [2] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger in reason of psychological ill-treatment; [3] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [4] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be determined on mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen the Director of Youth Protection A; [5] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [6] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [7] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [8] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment.

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for father / Mr. B Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: June 22, 2018 [1] The undersigned noting an error as to the file number, produces the present rectified judgment as of October 4, 2018