2021 QCCQ 15722, 2021 QCCQ 15722

Protection de la jeunesse — 219270 2021 QCCQ 15722 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-006426-202 DATE: September 22, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2008 Youth ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a youth or the youth’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 ] The Director of Youth Protection intervenes in the situation of the youth and his siblings since March 30, 2020 in relation to their exposure to a conflictual parental dynamic and educational neglect. [ 2 ] After an initial period of voluntary measures, the Court renders an order on May 5, 2021, entrusting the youth to his maternal grandparents with various other measures for six months.

His sisters, also subject of protective measures, remain in the family environment. [ 3 ] Since the last judgment, the family dynamic and issues regarding structure and discipline, continue to impact the children. In view of this mitigated evolution, the Director seeks to renew the protective measures for another six months. [ 4 ] The youth consents to the conclusions.

Although his parents question the pertinence of the Director’s involvement, they do not contest the application, recognizing that the youth is evolving positively with his grandparents. [ 5 ] An additional issue is raised by maternal grandfather, who asks that the Court authorize that the youth attend a school in Province B, offering a 12-month biblically-based program for young men struggling with life-controlling issues such as challenging behaviours. [ 6 ] While endorsing the conclusions of the application, the Court determines that it is not in the youth’s best interests to change schools. [ 7 ] The following justifies the Court’s decision.

The context [ 8 ] Since the last order, the situation of endangerment remains unresolved. Although the parents seem to ardently wish its resolution, their cooperation is limited by their inability to assume cooperative responsibility for their children. [ 9 ] As such, the parents misunderstand and question the reasons justifying the continued intervention.

This impedes their abilities to offer a stable and structured environment to their children. [ 10 ] The youth’s siblings, residing in the family environment, continue to be impacted by its instability and oftentimes incoherent parental responses. [ 11 ] Such is also the case for the youth. Seeing his parents on a mostly irregular basis, the family dynamics are still fragile.

[ 12 ] Since his placement with his grandparents, the youth’s behavioural difficulties have decreased overall and positive progress is observed. He responds generally well to the structure and stability of his grandparent’s milieu. [ 13 ] Certain incidents and periods of instability have required adjustments, namely the addition of the services of an educator.

The youth is cooperating well with this service and maintaining an acceptable balance. [ 14 ] After a crisis period in May, the grandfather seeks more services to help the youth, as he considers that the services in place are not sufficient to address the issues.

He finally settles on a private school in Province B focusing on boys presenting behavioural challenges. [ 15 ] He states his intention to not only assume the associated costs, but to ensure that the youth return home on a monthly basis. [ 16 ] The father mentions being in agreement with the youth attending the school proposed by the grandfather so he can work on himself.

The evidence demonstrates that the mother is also of this mind. [ 17 ] On the issue of changing schools, although he takes a neutral position through his attorney, the youth’s testimony reveals a more nuanced appreciation of his needs. [ 18 ] He testifies that he is making efforts to succeed in school and appreciates his teachers. He is trying to be his « best self » and is proud of his progress. [ 19 ] He states needing to have a better routine at home to be able to work on things with his family.

Everyone needs to start working on what they have to do, as he has, so the visits improve. [ 20 ] The father testifies as to his appreciation of the grandparent’s involvement with his son. He realizes his need to work on consistency, discipline and routine. He thinks that spending more time with his son would be beneficial. Analysis and decision [ 21 ] The decision of the Court must reflect the youth’s best interests.

The legislator further stipulates that « in addition to the moral, intellectual, emotional and material needs of the youth, his age, health, personality and family environment and the other aspects of his situation must be taken into account » (article 3 Youth Protection Act ). [ 22 ] While recognizing that the grandparents are certainly well-intended in their wish to help their grandson, the solution put forth that he change school, is neither an accurate reflection of his needs, of the issues nor of his progress. [ 23 ] Firstly, it is necessary to underline that the youth’s behavioural challenges are largely the result of the instability to which he has been exposed in his family environ-ment.

Such is the foundation of the Director’s intervention since March 2020, relating to psychological ill-treatment relating to the separation conflict and educational neglect. [ 24 ] These always unresolved issues are related to the parent’s capacities and not the youth’s behaviours.

As such, the main objective is that the parents increase their involvement in their son’s life and work towards being able to offer him an environment corresponding to his needs. [ 25 ] In the meantime, the youth has responded well to the structure and consistency offered by his grandparents, although the Court is fully aware that challenges remain in regards to his behaviours.

Although he is progressing at his own rhythm, he is progressing. [ 26 ] As such, his removal from his family and social environment at this juncture is tantamount to denying his efforts while sending a message that he is solely responsible for his situation, when such is not an accurate reflection of his reality. [ 27 ] Such a drastic change could also have a detrimental impact on his progressing stability. [ 28 ] Furthermore, there would be an effective paralysis of the follow-up destined to reach the objectives of ending the situation of endangerment and working his return to his family environment. [ 29 ] Simply stated, the Court concludes that the curative nature of this project is uncertain and could even be counter-productive.

The youth is better served by the continued efforts in place, in hoping that his parents will invest themselves in the changes necessary. [ 30 ] As such, the Court denies this request. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application; [ 32 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the youth still in danger; [ 33 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the order rendered on May 5, 2021; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to his maternal grandparents, Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the partial or complete re-integration of the youth in his parental milieu within the last sixty (60) days of placement, upon agreement between the parties; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and his parents be determined following agreement between the parties;

[ 37 ] FORBIDS the mother from putting the youth in contact with Mr. E; [ 38 ] FORBIDS the parents from being together in the presence of the youth, unless authorized by the Director; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth and his parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their youth’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development are in danger; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his family; [ 42 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Applicant Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the youth Date of hearing: September 22, 2021