2011 QCCQ 14039, 2011 QCCQ 14039

Protection de la jeunesse — 115110 2011 QCCQ 14039 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000423-118 DATE: October 7, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in A town Petitioner and X , residing and domiciled in A town, province of Québec, district A Child and A, residing and domiciled in A town, province of Québec, district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in A town, province of Québec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-34.1 ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a petition to review the decision rendered on June 23, 2011, by judge Denyse Leduc, in the situation of X, born on […], 1999.

He was entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months with reintegration with his parents and different measures of help were ordered for a period of six months. [ 2 ] The applicant now recommends, among others measures, to entrust the child to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months with progressive reintegration with his parents, if their situation allows it. The child is present at the hearing and represented. He admits some of the allegations but does not agree with the recommendation.

The parents are present but not represented; they do not wish to be represented even though they have been informed of their rights concerning this matter. [ 3 ] The child stayed at the A center in B town until July 13, 2011. While in B town, his aggressiveness diminished a lot and he was respecting the rules. Because he often felt rejected from his parents, one of the goals of the placement was to increase the quality of the relationship between him and his mother. The decision was then taken to bring him back in A town in order to integrate him progressively with his parents.

Home visits were granted on the condition that he would respect his parents and not ask for money. He went on the land with his parents for one week, from July 30 to August 8. Unfortunately, the parents did not bring him back at the Group home, alleging that they did not want to be the one to return him. The worker brought him back on August 10. [ 4 ] Between August 10 and August 17, he spent only one night at the Group A. The parents were not collaborating nor looking for him. It turned out that he was sleeping at his aunt, C, and was spending his time with his biological brothers and sisters.

Fortunately, he did not put himself in danger. [ 5 ] On August 15, the director of the Group A and an educator ruled that the child was not able to behave well in an open structure. The same day, the parents said to the DYP that they had no control over their son, that he was lying, steeling cigarettes, threatening to break their equipment and had even threatened to commit suicide that morning. [ 6 ] Since his return at the rehabilitation center in B town, his behaviour has improved.

The parents are saying that when they speak with him on the phone, he is behaving well but when he is at home, he is aggressive, do not listen and do not respect his curfew.

They acknowledge that their child needs to be in a structure environment, that things are improving and that their communication is much better now. [ 7 ] Considering the admissions, the testimonies and the revision report, the Court considers that the child’s situation is still endangered but, because of the improvements, a placement in a rehabilitation center for a period of four months will be sufficient to reach the different goals set for him.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the petition; MAINTAINS that the situation of X, born on […], 1999, is still compromised; REVISES the decision rendered on June 23, 2011 under

Section 95 YPA; ENTRUSTS the child to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months with progressive reintegration with his parents; ORDERS • that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and to the child’s family for a period of 10 months, • that the director of Youth Protection supervise the contacts between the child and his parents as for modalities and frequency, • that these contacts be as frequent as possible, • that the parents seek help for their personal issues, • that the child attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy, • that the child and his parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, • that the parents report periodically to the director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and the development of the child is in danger; ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the director who shall see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of this enactment, if requested. __________________________________ MARC E. GRIMARD, J.C.Q. M e Stéphanie Lachance Counsel for the applicant M e Denis Trottier Counsel for the child Date of hearing: September 20, 2011