2014 QCCQ 14752, 2014 QCCQ 14752

Protection de la jeunesse — 142911 2014 QCCQ 14752 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000564-120 DATE: April 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […], at Town A, district A Applicant -and- X, domiciled and residing at […], at Town A, district A Adolescent -and- A, domiciled and residing at […], at Town A, district A Mother -and- COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DE LA JEUNESSE, […], office […] in Town A (Quebec) Impleading ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by the Court on August 23, 2012, concerning X, born on […], 1997. [ 2 ] At the hearing the mother and the youth are present, but only the youth is represented by counsel. [ 3 ] At the outset of the hearing, the parties informed the Court of their intention to submit a draft agreement by which the adolescent would be entrusted to his mother.

The Court refused to endorse a draft agreement considering the number of questions raised by the Director's actions in the present matter. [ 4 ] In any event, the Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to revise its last order and entrust the youth to his mother. X and his mother both agree with this recommendation. THE FACTS [ 5 ] On August 23, 2012, the Court ruled that the security and the development of the adolescent were endangered due serious behavioural disturbance displayed by the youth and because of the existence of a serious risk of neglect.

The evidence then showed that the youth had special needs and that a psychological assessment was needed in order to better understand X. However, he refused to undergo such an assessment. Considering the seriousness of the youth's behaviour problems, the Court ordered that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of ten months. [ 6 ] X's stay at the rehabilitation center failed miserably. He refused to follow the re-education program as well as attend school. He fled the center more than seven times for different periods, some of which lasted more than two weeks.

All the youth wanted was to return home. During his stay at the rehabilitation center he made no efforts to gain insight as to the reasons that led to his placement. Notwithstanding the numerous times the adolescent ran away from the center, the Director of Youth Protection did very little to enhance the security level. As a result, after returning from a home visit in April 2013, X ran away from the center and basically never went back. [ 7 ] Meanwhile, the mother completed her methadone program and collaborated well with the Youth Protection workers showing

them her capacity to change. She is now working full time and is able to care for her children. Her husband, Mr B has also worked on personal issues such as intensive therapy in regards to his drug addiction. [ 8 ] In her testimony, the mother explains that she was concerned for her son's safety following his last escape from the rehabilitation center. She was somewhat relieved to hear in June 2013 that her son was in [Province A]. He was staying with his paternal grandparents trying to get acquainted with his biological father.

She states that this information was given to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 9 ] In January 2014, the mother pressed her son to come back to Quebec and face the consequences of his actions, more particularly regarding criminal charges pending under the Youth Criminal Justice Act . According to the mother, X has gained a sense of maturity while in [Province A]. He is now able to reflect upon his future and has goals such as pursuing his studies. She had never heard him speak about his future before. [ 10 ] Upon his return in Quebec, the youth was in custody awaiting his trial following a mischief charge.

After receiving his sentence on January 28, 2014, the youth returned home with his mother. According to the mother, X is behaving well and is able to respect house rules. Like the applicant, Mrs A believes that sending her son back to the rehabilitation center would be a mistake because this measure didn't work and because her son is now ready to function in a family setting while pursuing his schooling. [ 11 ] At the hearing, two revision reports were filed, both drafted by the applicant, one dated May 6, 2013, during the time the youth was at large and another dated January 22, 2013.

The applicant's view is quite simple. Considering that the youth showed no progress while in rehabilitation center, he should be returned with his mother, who has shown much improvement. [ 12 ] Questioned by the Court, the applicant admits that she knew where the youth was living in [Province A], but the attempts to have [Province A] police take charge of the youth failed. However, in the latest revision report, the applicant never mentions that she knew that X was staying with his grandparents near Town B. [ 13 ] The youth testified in a forthright manner as to his whereabouts during eight months as a run away.

After fleeing the reception center, X roamed from one place to another until he decided to go to [Province A] where he knew it would be more difficult to be taken into police custody. In the Town B vicinity he got acquainted with his paternal grandparents as well as with his biological father. His encounter with his father was, in many ways, disappointing and even hurtful. [ 14 ] X also states that he quit using drugs and did attend an alternative school while in Town B. He is now mindful of his future and wishes to pursue his schooling.

He would like to join the Canadian Forces and has even met an enrolment officer in that regard. [ 15 ] Mrs [Social Worker 2] a Youth Protection worker has been assisting the mother since the beginning of the Director's involvement with the family. According to her, the mother has made tremendous progress not only with her addiction, but also by addressing the core issues of her shortcomings as a mother. From her understanding, X has always longed to belong and live with his family. In the past, this hasn't been possible because of the mother personal issues and because of X's behavioural disturbance.

She strongly believes that the youth now realizes that adulthood is around the corner. Considering the mother is able to care for him, it would be a shame not to seize this opportunity. Moreover, since his return home, the adolescent has been attending weekly meetings with Youth Protection workers and is demonstrating a level of readiness for change. She is willing to provide full support to the adolescent in order to prepare him for adult life. ANALYSIS [ 16 ] The adolescent's situation was entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection because his security was at risk as of a result of his behavioural problems.

The evidence shows that for several months, not only the Director did not take any steps in order to respect the Court's order, but failed to assume his legal responsibility, which was to protect the adolescent. No field verification was carried out in [Province A] in order to investigate or find out more about the youth's living conditions and environment. [ 17 ] The Court also considers that the applicant wasn't forthcoming with information concerning the youth's whereabouts.

The last revision report never mentions where the youth had been living in [Province A] despite the fact that the applicant knew very well where that was. No real efforts were made to press the mother to convince her son to come back, nor did the Director take any legal measures to that effect.

The difficulties encountered at the rehabilitation center does not justify the Director's inertia during several months following his escape from the center, while the applicant knew where the youth was. [ 18 ] It is not because X seems to have gained maturity that the Director of Youth Protection was exempt from carrying out its responsibilities by respecting the Court's decision. [ 19 ] Despite the Director's failings, the Court must render a decision that is in the best interest of the adolescent and that takes into account his age, his actual state of mind and the mother's ability to welcome him in her home. [ 20 ] The Court agrees that everything must be done in order to support X in his last months as a minor and that it can be done in his family setting.

The adolescent seems to be open to criticism and has goals for his future. Everyone agrees that the adolescent has special needs, but no assessment was done in order to find out more about the adolescent's psychological functioning. For his own sake and his future goals, the Court presses the adolescent to accept to undergo a psychological assessment. [ 21 ] A close follow-up by the Director of Youth Protection will be an essential part of the measures. The Court is hopeful that X will accept his mother's and the Directors' assistance in order to make the right choices for himself.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the petition;

[ 23 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 1997, are still endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to his mother; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the family and the adolescent until the latter attains the age of majority; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his mother actively participate in applying the following measures; [ 27 ] ORDERS for the next six months that the adolescent report in person to the Director of Youth Protection once a week in order to inform him of his current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother and her husband report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection in order to inform him of their current situation; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent undergo a psychological assessment and that the recommendations be enforced; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remains sober at all times; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother and her husband take the necessary measures in order to be sober when in presence of the adolescent as well as to make sure the adolescent is not in presence of people under the influence of alcohol and drugs; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the adolescent obtain prior approval by the Director Youth Protection before any visits or outings in the province A; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school or a place of learning or participates in a program geared in developing skills and autonomy; [ 34 ] ALLOWS the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits in the family dwelling; [ 35 ] ALLOWS that any professionals involved be permitted to exchange information regarding the attendance and general progress of the adolescent or the family situation, professional secrecy will apply for the rest; [ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the present judgment; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection or his substitute for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel CENTRE JEUNESSE A Lawyer for the DYP M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the youth Date of hearing: February 27, 2014