2017 QCCQ 9076, 2017 QCCQ 9076

Protection de la jeunesse — 173812 2017 QCCQ 9076 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029324-159; 525-41-029325-156; 525-41-029323-151 DATE : April 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on […], 2004 Y , born on […], 2005 Z , born on […], 2008 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on April 26 th , 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on April 20 th , 2015.

The Director is asking that the children remain entrusted to the care of their mother and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] Although the father was present and duly represented at the beginning of the inquiry (on July 5 th , 2016), he is not present nor represented at the conclusion of the inquiry (on April 26 th , 2017).

Nonetheless, father admitted all the facts alleged in support of the motion and agreed with the recommendations presented by the Director. [ 4 ] The mother admitted essentially all the facts alleged by the Director but denied that she is not open to outside assistance to help her deal with her children’s behaviour. She too was in agreement with the recommended measures. [ 5 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry (on April 26 th , 2017) the mother raises the fact that the Director has been involved for quite a long time.

Therefore, she would be prefer that the court order be rendered only for a period of six months. [ 6 ] On behalf of the children, their attorney is in agreement with the main conclusions sought by the Director. Y does not wish to see her father and would prefer not to attend therapy. As to the duration of the court order, the children have not expressed a preference.

[ 7 ] It appears that the situation of the children remains problematic on many levels. [ 8 ] The parents recognize that their ongoing conflicts and the children’s behavioural difficulties require the intervention of the Director. In addition, it appears that the children have behavioural disturbances and conflicts between themselves. [ 9 ] Ralph’s behaviour is increasingly concerning. On occasions, he has been brought back home accompanied by the police. It happened in December after the adolescent was involved in a fight in the metro.

It happened again in March following the involve-ment of the adolescent in a fight causing injuries to another adolescent. Ralph is now facing charges and is therefore involved under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). [ 10 ] It appears that the supervision provided by the parents is not sufficient. The whereabouts of the adolescent are often unknown to the mother. Information is to the effect that the adolescent spends a lot of time with his girlfriend, without adult supervision.

Efforts made by the worker to try and discuss the matter with the father were to no avail. [ 11 ] Y’s situation is just as concerning. Mid-October, the adolescent complained to be physically abused by her older brother Z. As a result, the child was entrusted to the care of her father. [ 12 ] From then on, the child has refused to have contacts with her mother. Efforts made to try and discuss the issues did not provide any explanation as to why the child would refuse contacts with her mother. [ 13 ] In addition, Y’s behaviour has deteriorated.

She has been involved in fights with peers at school, has run away from school and has harmed herself or threatened to do so on many occasions. [ 14 ] During the Holidays, unbeknownst to the Director, the child had contact with her mother and her brother Z. A few days later, the child decided, despite the court order rendered, to go back to her mother’s care.

Since then, she is refusing to have contacts with her father and will not explain why. [ 15 ] A psychological assessment completed in January 2017 highlights the need for therapeutic intervention to occur involving both Y and her mother. [ 16 ] Finally, X behavioural problems led to his placement in a rehabilitation centre for the months of June and July 2016.

On two occasions, police intervention was necessary as the child became completely out of control. [ 17 ] Of concern is the fact that the child reported ongoing ill-treatment by his siblings while at his mother’s home. [ 18 ] The evidence reveals that the services of the Director are necessary in order to try and help the parents provide the appropriate structure and supervision to ensure that the children do not harm each other and behave appropriately. [ 19 ] In addition, the parents have to collaborate fully with the Director in order to ensure that the children are not exposed to their conflicts and to learn how to coparent effectively their children.

The rules the children are expected to follow and respect should be coherent and the parents are expected to improve their communication sufficiently to ensure that they exercise their authority in a similar way. [ 20 ] Both parents have to be involved in trying to find a solution and provide the appropriate support to Y. [ 21 ] The Director has established the need for continued intervention. The measures recommended meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS all three (3) children to the care of their mother; [ 24 ] ORDERS that Y participate in therapy; [ 25 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents take

part in the therapy if needed; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents explore the possibility of attending a mediation program to help them coparent more effectively; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the modalities and duration of contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the children’s needs and expressed desires and SETS the minimum frequency of these contacts at once (1) per week; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

_________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me François Pelletier Attorney for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : April 26 th 2017