2010 QCCQ 19529, 2010 QCCQ 19529

Protection de la jeunesse — 107511 2010 QCCQ 19529 JL3389 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 525-41-023963-101 DATE : December 9 th , 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born […], 1996. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her capacity as person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth Centres A applicant - and - A , the mother - and - B , the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on December 9 th , 2010. [ 2 ] The Court is seized in conformity with

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act with a demand that the security or development of X be declared to be in danger for the reasons alleged in paragraph 3 of the declaration. [ 3 ] Essentially, le Director of Youth Protection sustains: 3.1 On September 28 th , 2010, the Director of Youth Protection received a signalement concerning the adolescent's situation; 3.2 The adolescent has been displaying serious behavioural disturbances, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) The adolescent has been consuming marijuana and alcohol;

b) The adolescent has been disregarding any adult authority;

c) The adolescent has been verbally abusive;

d) The adolescent has been making threats;

e) The adolescent has been associating with negative peers;

f) The adolescent has been displaying aggressive behaviour at home;

g) The adolescent has been expelled, on many occasions, from school;

h) On November 3 rd 2010, the adolescent was suspended from school after he grabbed another student by the neck; 3.3 The adolescent has been diagnosed with ADHD, but refuses to take his medication; 3.4 The adolescent has been refusing to participate with community resources; 3.5 The adolescent is not taking responsibility for his actions; 3.6 The parents left for vacation on November 5 th 2010 and the adolescent was entrusted to the parents of a friend of his; 3.7 The adolescent broke into his family's home; 3.8 The adolescent took his father's car key, without his father's permission, and took the car for a ride with friends; 3.9 On November 15 th 2010, immediate protective measures were invoked and the adolescent was placed in a rehabilitation centre; 3.10 The parents are overwhelmed with the situation and are in agreement for the adolescent to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre at this point; [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommended that X be placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of three (3) months with reintegration into his parents' care as soon as the situation allows, and that measures be applied in order to correct the situation, as appears in the Court record. [ 5 ] The parents while informed of their right to be represented or assisted by attorney, chose to proceed without attorney and declared to be in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection, as appears in the Court record; [ 6 ] The adolescent, through his attorney, declared to be in agreement with the placement and most of the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection, as appears in the Court record [ 7 ] By consent and to serve as evidence, the Director of Youth Protection filed the following documents: D-1: Child's birth certificate; D-2: Court report, by [social worker 1], dated December 1 st , 2010; [ 8 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 9 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that X (14 years old) has been manifesting behaviour problems at home, at school and in the community for several months. [ 10 ] His parents are overwhelmed with his general non-compliance and are asking for help. [ 11 ] It is recommended that X spend some time in rehabilitation centre in order to give some structure to his behaviour and to gradually integrate him back home with social services to assist him and his parents. [ 12 ] All parties are in agreement with this orientation. [ 13 ] Therefore, having received the admissions of the parties, taken into consideration the reports submitted, the Court concludes that the allegations have been proven to it's satisfaction and permit the measures to be applied. [ 14 ] CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act. [ 17 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 18 ] ORDERS that X be placed in a rehabilitation center for a period of 3 months with reintegration into his parents care when and as soon as the situation allows; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that X takes

part in an Anger managment program and that the Direction of the Youth Protection have acces to his progress; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the Direction of the Youth Protection assist the parents in securing such program when X is released from the rehabilitation center and back at his parents home;

[ 21 ] ORDERS X to attend school daily unless justified by a medical note; [ 22 ] ORDERS X to refrain from consuming drugs and alcohol; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS X to submit to random drug testing; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that X take

part in a drug and alcohol assessment; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents to continue to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection delegate and to set out consistent house’s rules; [ 26 ] ORDERS X to follow these rules; [ 27 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and his family for a period of one year; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Direction of the Youth Protection of the Youth Centres A who shall then see that the measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer if necessary; SIGNED AT CITY A __________________________________ MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q.

M e Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the applicant M e Marie-Josée Lavigueur Attorney for the adolescent Judgment rendered orally on December 9 th 2010. ML/mlm