2017 QCCQ 7496, 2017 QCCQ 7496

Protection de la jeunesse — 173226 2017 QCCQ 7496 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-032305-179 Date: April 19, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2003 [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 April 19, 2017, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A Centres filed an Application to declare that the security or the development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a thirteen year-old child, based on his serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated March 14, 2017 are as follows: 3.1. since March 2016, the child has been the subject of an Agreement on Voluntary Measures for concerns of behavioral disturbances; 3.2. at the time, the child was disrespectful and disruptive at home; 3.3. the child was aggressive at home and at school, destroying walls when upset; 3.4. the mother was overwhelmed by the child’s behaviours and had difficulty dealing with him appropriately; 3.5. since March 2016, the family has been receiving services from the A Program; 3.6. since September 2016, the child has attended A School; 3.7. the child and mother have collaborated well with the interventions; 3.8. nonetheless, the child has continued to demonstrate serious behavioural difficulties; 3.9. the child was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder but responded well to the medication; 3.10. the situation remains problematic, and ongoing support and monitoring are required; 3.11. the father has not been actively involved in the intervention (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

[ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months with a reintegration to his mother’s care with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the application and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father’s whereabouts remain unknown despite efforts to locate him and the Court proceeded in his absence. [ 7 ] The child, assisted by Me Fafard, admitted all the facts alleged and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate; D-2: Agreement on voluntary measures, dated March 14, 2016; D-3: Court report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated April 7, 2017. [ 9 ] In

summary, the child’s behavioral disturbances are admitted as is the need for a short period of placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 10 ] The mother sought to emphasize her love and commitment towards her child as well as her dedication to accessing appropriate services for her son. She appears to have a lot of confidence in the worker and to be willing to do what is necessary to redress the situation. [ 11 ] She explained that she sought services to help her son but then resented his decision to remain in placement on a provisional basis at the hearing on March 15, 2017.

His continued placement is intended to help him take greater responsibility for his behavior and earn his mother’s trust before fully reintegrating her care. [ 12 ] The Court also heard the child who appeared to be very thoughtful and poised. He acknowledged feelings of intense anger without identifying a clear cause. He also appears motivated to take an active

part in improving his relationship with his mother. [ 13 ] The evidence clearly suggests that both mother and son could greatly benefit from joint counselling to improve their communication skills and learn to prevent the escalation of theirs conflicts. [ 14 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by the parties, the Court is satisfied that the application is well- founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under

section 38 (

f) 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: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months with a possible reintegration to his mother’s care as soon as the situation allows; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child, the mother and Mr.

C, the child’s psychological father, continue to collaborate with the A program, including the use of respite a maximum of twice a month, when needed; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of mother’s undertaking to refrain from excessive yelling and denigrating her child; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that both the mother and the child are open to receiving joint counselling to improve their communication and their relationship; [ 21 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that they do so as soon as possible; [ 22 ] ORDERS that every effort be made for them to benefit from such counseling as quickly as possible; [ 23 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child has expressed the desire to benefit from individual counseling and, consequently, ORDERS that he do so as soon as possible; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child attend school regularly; [ 25 ] SUSPENDS contacts between the child and his father until such time as the child requests such contacts and then ORDERS that the frequency and modality of such contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection taking into account the child’s wishes and best interest; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for A Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family;

[ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the child TD/vl