2017 QCCQ 6875, 2017 QCCQ 6875

Protection de la jeunesse — 173088 2017 QCCQ 6875 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029353-158 Date: March 31, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 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 March 31, 2017, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on February 1, 2016, whereby the now ten year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of her mother with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision and extension dated January 19, 2017, are as follows: 3.1. the family was evicted from their apartment in April 2016 and now reside full time in the maternal grandmother’s home; 3.2. the mother has been collaborative with the youth protection worker and has made efforts to improve the situation, however she continues to struggle getting the child to go to school and often feels overwhelmed about the situation; 3.3. the child passed her grade 3 but missed 26.5 days out of 77 in her third term; 3.4. the child has missed 26 days out of 47 in her first term of grade 4, although much of the absences were justified by a doctor’s note; 3.5. the child is consequently very far behind academically and is on her way to failing; 3.6. the child’s health remains a concern, particularly regarding her anxiety and her weight; 3.7. the child is presently being evaluated for a possible eating disorder; 3.8. the child and the mother have been inconsistent regarding their presence to different services put in place for the child (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to her mother, 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 alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. She added that she appreciates the social services provided by the Director of Youth Protection, including the assistance of an educator who works with the family once a week. [ 6 ] The child, assisted by Me Ayoub, admitted all the alleged facts and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-16 and D-17 as evidence: D-16: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated January 6, 2017; D-17: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated March 24, 2017. [ 8 ] In

summary, the allegations are admitted, as is the need for ongoing support from the Director of Youth Protection. [ 9 ] Numerous services are in place to help the child. Unfortunately, many of the services, including art therapy and counselling for a possible eating disorder, interfere with the child’s school

schedule and efforts should be made to re-schedule them if possible. [ 10 ] In addition, serious concerns were raised regarding bullying incidents at the child’s school that should be addressed with the school as soon as possible. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to her mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on time and daily, unless excused by a doctor’s note; [ 16 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that every effort be made to re-schedule the child’s appointments both for her art therapy as well as with her psychologist from the eating disorder clinic so that they do not interfere with her school schedule; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that steps be taken with the authorities at the child’s school to address bullying that has taken place; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child receive all therapeutic services recommended by her treating professionals, and that the mother follow through with any recommendations made in a timely manner; [ 19 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother receive follow-up for her ongoing mental health issues, and take medication as prescribed; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator for as long as necessary, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to fully collaborate; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to receive tutoring services; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange all relevant information regarding participation and attendance with the professionals involved with the family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois

Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the child TD/vl