Claude Chamberland, lawyer
A judgment of January 12, 2021 from the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, shows us that unfortunately parental homophobia remains a problem even today. Here is what the judge reported in this case:
“Parents find it difficult to accept their son’s sexual orientation. During his testimony, the father fails to recognize that his son could be homosexual. Rather, he talks about the influence of friends, gang membership or fashion. The parents maintain a negative discourse with regard to their son’s friends. The mother mentioned wanting to disown her son if he does not change his sexual orientation.
During his testimony, the social worker reports the words of the mother who said she was ready to disinherit her son insofar as he did not change his sexual orientation. She wanted to fund anti-LGBT organizations.
During the morning of October 13, 2020, the father and the teenager had a conflict related to the latter’s school situation. Later in the day, a second conflict arises in connection with the sexual orientation of the teenager. The police must intervene and the father is eventually arrested for assault. A contact ban between the father and the adolescent is then imposed.
The teenager reports that his parents can insult and denigrate him. He exhibits anxiety behaviors and remains worried about the situation of his parents. He wants to protect them anyway.
Faced with the events of October 13, 2020, the father told the social worker that he no longer remembered whether he hit his son. However, he reports never having hit his son in the past.
During his testimony, the father is more categorical and reports that he did not hit his son during the incidents of October 13, 2020. Since October 16, 2020, the teenager has been housed by his friend’s parents.
On October 21, 2020, the Court entrusted the teenager to them. During this hearing, the parents want their son to return to their home, but respect his choice to stay away from home. On October 26, 2020, the teenager informed the social worker of the difficulties experienced during the weekend. Her mother emotionally blackmailed her through text messages and phone calls. On numerous occasions thereafter, the mother would continue to send him messages condemning homosexuality.
The teenager would like to eventually be able to return to live with his parents. He considers that such a return could be possible as long as the parents work on their personal situation and their communication as well as the understanding and acceptance of his sexual orientation.
The adolescent and the mother began a family therapeutic process. The teenager is disappointed with this approach since his mother continues to convey her reproaches to him and to exert pressure so that he comes back home. The teenager eventually terminated this service.
Since December 4, 2020, the teenager can count on the support of an individual therapeutic follow-up. He says he appreciates this support. The teenager reported to the social worker that his mother emptied his bank account containing almost $4,000 in savings. She told him that she would give him the money when he got home. During a consultation with Doctor C, the mother mentioned that she no longer had a son.
On several occasions, the mother continues to send moralizing messages to her son in connection with his homosexuality and his possible return home.
The parents remain wary of the Director’s intervention in their family. They find it difficult to respect the established limits. Since he cannot return home, the mother believes that her son should be placed in a rehabilitation center, despite the fact that he does not show any serious behavioral problems.
The mother considers that the family problems are related to her son’s routine and his Internet addiction. At this stage, parents are unable to clearly identify family issues. They are too overwhelmed by the situation and cannot truly work through a healing process with their son.
The recommendations presented by the Director are entirely justified. There followed the protective measures established by the Court, which maintained the placement of the teenager with his friend’s parents.
Warning: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or distribution of any information that could identify a child or his parents. Anyone who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 L.P.J.).