2019 QCCQ 14959, 2019 QCCQ 14959

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911117 2019 QCCQ 14959 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 35842-194 Date: November 21, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 21, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a twelve year-old child, based on the psychological ill- treatment and physical discipline to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s two brothers whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated August 15, 2019 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, the parents have shared custody of the child on an alternating weekly basis as per a Superior Court judgment; 3.2. the family’s situation was signaled in May and June 2019 due to concerns of physical discipline used by the parents as well as psychological ill-treatment; 3.3. the child disclosed that the father slaps him across the face and hits him with his hand on the back of his neck at a frequency of two to three times per week; 3.4. the child expressed feeling afraid of his father when the latter becomes angry with him; 3.5. the father has anger management issues which have not been properly addressed; 3.6. the child also disclosed that approximately three weeks ago, the mother put pepper in his mouth; 3.7. information is to the effect that mother, at times twists the child’s ear when he misbehaves; 3.8. on August 5, 2019 the entente multi-sectorielle was applied given the nature of the allegations that were revealed;

3.9. the father confirms having used physical discipline on the child and believes that this method is appropriate; 3.10. the mother has also acknowledged the use of physical discipline; 3.11. on August 6, 2019 the parents signed a provisional agreement which contains their commitment to refrain from using physical methods of discipline on the child; 3.12. the father has been, at times verbally aggressive and intimidating towards the youth protection worker; 3.13. the parents also have a longstanding and ongoing conflict; 3.14. more specifically, the father has been verbally denigrating towards the mother in the child’s presence; 3.15. at the present time, the parents do not communicate at all and are unable to co-parent in any meaningful way; 3.16.

X has been referred for counseling at his CLSC given concerns that he may be depressed by the father refuses to sign the consent form for his son to receive said services; 3.17. [the child’s eldest brother] has academic difficulties and is in need to receive tutoring services (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the family receive aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, acknowledged the parents’ inability to effectively co-parent their children and agreed to the Director of Youth Protection’s ongoing involvement with the family to provide support and to mediate between the parents, recognizing that the Director of Youth Protection’s prior involvement was beneficial to the family. [ 7 ] However, she asked that the children be entrusted to her care, stating that their situation has deteriorated since the Superior Court joint custody order in January 2018. [ 8 ] She denied ever having been abusive towards her children and explained that prior occasional inappropriate methods of discipline were no longer used.

On the other hand, she blames the father for her children’s disrespectful attitude towards her and, more generally, for their psychological distress.

She fears he will negatively affect their perception of women and their ability to enjoy healthy relationships in the future. [ 9 ] Consequently, she feels that spending weekends with their father would be more appropriate for the children and accepts any services the Director of Youth Protection may provide to redress the situation. [ 10 ] The father, who also chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, also asked that the children be entrusted to his care, describing himself as the more loving, caring parent, although he insisted on his strong belief that the children need both parents in their lives.

He acknowledged the toxic nature of his relationship with the mother but minimized the impact of his occasional use of physical discipline on the children. [ 11 ] The children, represented by Me Grondin, indicated that they would prefer to be entrusted to their father’s care but did not wish to testify at the hearing. [ 12 ] After having heard all the evidence, counsel for the children was of the opinion that the evidence established both grounds of endangerement and suggested that the parents could benefit from counselling and psychological support. [ 13 ] At the hearing, the Director filed Exhibits D-2 to D-4 as evidence: D-2: Court Report, prepared by [social worker 1], dated November 13, 2019; D-3: Superior Court Divorce judgment dated October 11, 2017; D-4: Youth Court Division judgment dated April 14, 2016. [ 14 ] The child’s birth certificate, Exhibit D-1, was only submitted afterwards, on January 30, 2020. [ 15 ] In

summary, the parents have been unable to effectively protect their children from their intense hostility towards one another. [ 16 ] The tension between them remains palpable and the children continue to suffer as a result. [ 17 ] It should be recalled that the Director of Youth Protection became involved with the family for similar reasons following the parents’ separation in October 2015, and provided Court ordered services until December 2016. [ 18 ] Three years later, the parents still have difficulty setting aside their deep resentment towards each other and each of their children is suffering emotionally. [ 19 ] The eldest child has failed secondary one and his teachers report many academic, behavioral and emotional concerns [2] . [ 20 ] X has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and is also suffering academically: […] X was evaluated at the school and it was determined by a psychologist that he was anxious and depressed.

As well, this caseworker

received X first communication. X is having difficulty academically. In mathematics he is experiencing difficulty and in Ethics he is progressing below average.

In addition, in Geography and English he produces inconsistent work and is struggling with certain concept and elements. [3] [ 21 ] The youngest child has expressed suicidal thoughts [4] and has developed tics as a result of stress [5] . [ 22 ] On a more positive note, although both parents minimize their use of inappropriate methods to discipline the children, there have been no reported incidents of physical discipline since August 2019. [ 23 ] The evidence also establishes that both parents are actively involved in their children’s lives and have a strong interest in fostering their strengths. [ 24 ] Regarding the mother: Ms.

A presents as a very caring parent. This caseworker has observed Ms. A hugging and kissing her children. As well, she presents as a (sic) concerned for the safety of her children. [6] [ 25 ] As for the father: Mr. B is also an active parent.

He takes the children for jogs around the community and enrolled for […] school on Saturday’s. [7] [ 26 ] The worker also confirmed that the children are seen to be happy in each parents’ household, and there is no reason to favour sole custody for one parent or the other. [ 27 ] Under the circumstances, both parents have much to offer their children and both have refrained from physical or inappropriate methods of discipline since August 2019. [ 28 ] It is imperative that each parent make their children’s well-being their utmost priority and realize that any negativity towards the other parent directly affects the children and jeopardizes their emotional health. [ 29 ] The parents must not use the children to communicate with each other in any way and must learn to communicate only in their children’s interest. [ 30 ] The Director of Youth Protection’s role will include helping the parents to follow guidelines for constructive communication between them and ensuring that the children receive the support services they need to cope with the conflict they did not create but have been exposed to for far too long. [ 31 ] Both parents are also encouraged to benefit from counselling services to find more appropriate ways to process their feelings of animosity and protect their children.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (

c) and 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD’S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receive services required to deal with his anxiety and depression; [ 36 ] ORDERS that he benefit from counselling services as soon as possible; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from individual tutoring on a weekly basis TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that both parents undertake to ensure that the tutoring services continue without interruption while the child is in their care; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to receive tutoring services at school; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents benefit from individual counselling and eventually from family counselling, when they will be ready to do so; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from a psychoeducational assessment to determine the causes of his academic difficulties and that the recommendations be followed; [ 41 ] ORDERS that each of the parents refrain from denigrating the other parent in front of the child or exposing the child to their conflict, either directly or indirectly; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that, with the social worker’s assistance, a clear set of rules be devised for the parents to communicate in writing, either by email or text, so that their communication is strictly limited to the children, remains courteous and occurs only when necessary; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and

assistance to the child and his family; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. Signed on January 31, 2020 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Anthony Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Guy-Luc Grondin Attorney for the child TD/vl