2013 QCCQ 9324, 2013 QCCQ 9324

Protection de la jeunesse — 132237 2013 QCCQ 9324 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] JL 4031 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION No: 525-41-013328-034 DATE : May 9 th , 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTERS Director and X born on […], 1999 child And A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby gives reasons for the decision rendered further to the hearing held on May 9 th , 2013, as required by

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection of A (" the Director" ), to revise an order rendered by the Honorable Daniel Lavery on June 5 th , 2012, entrusting the adolescent to his father with aid, counsel and assistance and other corrective measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 3 ] More particularly, the Director alleges the following: 3.1. the child remains in the care of the father; 3.2. the child continues to present with behavioural difficulties, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child admits to regular marijuana consumption;

b) the child was subject to a signalement shortly after a police intervention in the home following an altercation between the father and the child's sibling which revealed that the child had a large amount of marijuana in his bedroom;

c) the child exhibits behavioural challenges at school; 3.3. the child has been referred to be evaluated at A clinic at the hospital A; 3.4. the child has also accepted a referral to meet with a A counsellor at his school to undergo a substance abuse assessment;

3.5. the father is highly committed and collaborative with the interveners; 3.6. the father continues, however, to struggle in various areas, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the father has difficulty in adequately supervising and responding to the child's behaviours;

b) the father has difficulty in asserting his parental authority and communicating expectations and consequences;

c) the father experiences financial struggles and has outstanding debts for his rent and hydro bills;

d) during a police intervention, the police officers found evidence of materials used to grow marijuana; 3.7. in February 2013, an educator was assigned to work with the family in providing tools to enhance and better the communication between the child and the father; 3.8. the father acknowledges the need for further support in monitoring and handling the child's behaviours; 3.9. the mother has remained uninvolved with the intervention and her whereabouts continue to be unknown; 3.10. continued intervention is warranted given the fragility of the home situation; [ 4 ] The Director is recommending that the adolescent remain in his father's care with aid, counsel and assistance and other corrective measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother is absent.

She has not been involved for several years and not seen her son since 2007. She is presently detained at A prison but consents to the measures proposed by the Director. The Court proceeds in her absence with the other parties' consent. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Brunet, makes a general admission of the allegations and consents to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 7 ] X, assisted by Me Morin, makes a general admission of the allegations save par. 3.6.

a) to

c) and consents to the measures proposed by the Director. However, he does not agree with substance abuse assessment and follow-up, as the DYP is asking the Court to recommend. [ 8 ] The facts are essentially as alleged. X displays certain behavioural challenges at home and at school. His drug use is of particular concern, which is why the Court will be making recommendations for X to get help in this regard. [ 9 ] The father remains very committed to his son. He attends all meetings with DYP and with the school and tries his best to provide his son with proper supervision and structure.

He is seen as somewhat soft and needing help to firm-up his stance with his son. Educator services have been introduced in recent months. [ 10 ] The father appreciates DYP support for his son and requests their continued involvement. [ 11 ] The Court is believes that the measures proposed by the Director are in X's best interest. [ 12 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 13 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision ; and [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still compromised; [ 15 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to his father; [ 17 ] ORDERS that X refrain from using or selling drugs; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that X undergo a substance abuse assessment and follow through with any treatment recommendations; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the father ensure that X not use or possess drugs when in his care; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the father support X in seeking treatment services, including undergoing a substance abuse assessment himself; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continue to collaborate with the DYP delegate, educator and school professionals to enforce appropriate limits and consequences for X; [ 22 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 23 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary;

City A, this 27 th day of May 2013 _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the Director Me Marc Morin Attorney for the child Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the father Hearing date: CL/nl May 9 th , 2013