2017 QCCQ 1785, 2017 QCCQ 1785

Protection de la jeunesse — 17534 2017 QCCQ 1785 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000428-160 DATE: January 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2007 Child -and- A -and B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The child is nine year-old but he does not go to school. For that reason, the director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that his security or development are in danger. [ 2 ] As protective measures, the DYP recommends that the child remain entrusted to his mother but attend school assiduously. [ 3 ] Both parents admit the situation and agree to the application of protective measures.

However, they wish that their son benefit from home schooling. [ 4 ] The situation revealed by the evidence can be summarized as follows. [ 5 ] The DYP investigates the family’s situation in 2012. At the time, among other problems, the child’s older brothers do not attend school and never did. In December 2012, the Court orders protective measures for the following year. [ 6 ] The child attends kindergarten from September 2013. His preschool education report card indicates that he develops well and improves his skills throughout the school year. [ 7 ] The child then enters a grade one class in September 2014.

He attends school until June 2015. At the end of the school year, his report card indicates he still needs support in reading and writing and he struggles with math concepts. He also has very high absenteeism. [ 8 ] The mother decides not to register the child at school in September 2015. She states she sends a notification for home schooling. However, the school board never receives it, so it is not approved. Nevertheless, the mother keeps her son at home ever since. [ 9 ] The child’s situation is then reported, once more, to the DYP.

The social worker has a hard time trying to reach the mother and obtain her cooperation. The mother spends significant periods of time in Montreal, because the child’s brother requires specialized health care and services. She brings the child with her when going to Montreal. According to her, it is one of the reasons why the child does not attend school. Last spring, the mother refuses to provide the social worker with a phone number to join her in Montreal. [ 10 ] During the assessment of the situation by the DYP, the mother has her son evaluated. The results show that the child is working

at a grade one level, when he should be in grade three at the time, considering his age. [ 11 ] One of the child’s brother, who is 15 year-old and home schooled, works at a grade four level, according to an evaluation made at the mother’s request. [ 12 ] On September 19, 2016, the mother sends a notification for home schooling concerning the child. Considering the policy established by the school board, it is almost three months passed the deadline. Nevertheless, the director of educational services provides an answer. The school board does not consider the child an appropriate candidate for home schooling.

Furthermore, the school board states that it was impossible to assess the child’s academic level the previous year, since he never attended exam periods. There are also concerns about the child’s social integration. [ 13 ] Since the school board refuses her home schooling application, the DYP tries to convince the mother to register the child to school, in vain. [ 14 ] At the hearing, the mother says she wishes to keep her son home, for different reasons. They have to go to Montreal often for another son, so he would miss school anyway.

She also fears the child will be bullied in school, as he was in the past, because he is tiny and has very long hair. [ 15 ] The mother adds that her son would rather be home schooled. She also states she found a tutor who will help the child and evaluate his situation. She blames the school for not providing services. [ 16 ] In conclusion, the mother requests more time and, if it does not work out, then her son will go to school, next September. [ 17 ] The father shares the mother’s point of view. He says his son is advancing and it would be difficult for him to integrate school in the middle of the year.

The father has contacts with the child but the parents do not live together. [ 18 ] The child’s situation is troubling and worries the Court. He has serious academic delays and we do not know much about his intellectual capacities. We do know, however, that he made substantial gains when attending school in 2014-2015. We also know that his older brother also has to cope with severe academic delays. [ 19 ] Nothing in the evidence demonstrates that the child receives instruction and benefits from an education experience equivalent to what is provided in school.

To the contrary, the Court fears that the child does not develop his academic potential. Moreover, the child is socially isolated and does not benefit from activities with peers on a regular basis. [ 20 ] On the balance of probabilities, the Court is convinced that the fact that he is not going to school endangers the security or development of the child. [ 21 ] It is urgent that the child integrates a regular school setting. He will most likely require help to adapt on both social and academic levels. His mother’s support would be of great help.

The mother obviously loves her son, so the Court hopes she will be able to support him, even though she disagrees with the present decision. [ 22 ] Otherwise, other measures will have to be foreseen to ensure the child’s best interest and respect his right to benefit from a proper education. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP on the measures they apply in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the development of the child is in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child attend school assiduously; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his parents until December 31, 2017; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment.

__________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. Me Louyse a. Lemieux for the applicant Me Cédric Leblanc Falardeau for the child Me Annie Dupuis for the mother Mr. B the father Written judgment filed on February 6, 2017