2021 QCCQ 16590, 2021 QCCQ 16590

Protection de la jeunesse — 214665 2021 QCCQ 16590 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002353-198 DATE: February 23, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 7, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on October 8, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and ordered that the youth remain with his parents with services until November 26, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends that the youth remain with his parents with services until December 31, 2021.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Geneviève Lucas. She recognizes that the security and development of her son are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On August 23, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X had a poor school attendance and aggressive behaviour.

He was suspended twice from school because of his behaviour, despite being helped by a shadow for 2 years. He did not respect his criminal conditions. The child psychiatrist suspected ADHD and ODD and referred him to Dr. Berry for medication. The parents disagreed with the medication. The Court declared that the security and development of the adolescent were endangered [1] and maintained him under his parents’ care. The Court ordered that he receive the medical cares he needs and that he attend school regularly, the whole until December 31, 2019; [ 7 ] On December 18, 2019 , the Court revised the situation.

The situation showed that X was able to make some improvements, but still needed a shadow at school considering he continued to disturb the class. The parents did not apply a strict structure to the youth. The Court maintained the adolescent with his parents, ordered that he can benefit from medical cares, he be provided with a shadow without any delay and with an individual support at school. The Court also ordered the services of an external educator for as long as deemed necessary, the whole until August 31, 2020. [ 8 ] On October 8, 2020 , the Court revised the situation.

The evidence showed that an intervention had been put in place and since

then a lot of improvements were noted at school and in the community. At school he continued to have difficulty concentrating and finishing his tasks. Due to his poor school attendance, X accumulated learning delays and those delays generate anxiety and a lack of motivation. Because of his behavioural issues, the school imposed him to be accompanied by a shadow (behavioural technician). The shadow is not frequently available and if she is not at school, X does not have the right to be present. The school received the previous decision in which a shadow was ordered.

The parents committed to make sure that X would be waking up to go to school. Most of the time, X sleeps at his grandparents’ place. The parents and grandparents are very involved with the DYP and school. The DYP is concerned by the lack of collaboration from the school Principal to find a permanent solution regarding the presence of a shadow. Some concerns were raised regarding a potential ADHD and the mother agreed to consult a pediatrician to know more about that and about the alternative to medication.

The Court ordered that the youth remain with his parents, he attend school on a daily basis, the school provide a shadow and an individual support, ordered that the parents meet with a pediatrician to have information about ADHD and/or ODD, the whole until the end of November 2020. [ 9 ] On November 26, 2020 , due to a lack of time, the Court postponed the hearing under

section 95 and maintained the measures previously ordered on provisional measures. Facts [ 10 ] The school year started on September 28, 2020, and X attended the first 2 days. In October, he did not attend school, nor in November and the following months. [ 11 ] On October 21, 2020, the individualized educational plan was revised. The meeting was postponed to give the opportunity to X to attend school, but he never showed up. [ 12 ] The meeting with the child psychiatrist was planned for November 16, but it had been postponed in January 2021.

The parents were present, but X did not attend. [ 13 ] The school made sure to have an adult available to accompany X every day. The parents on their side called X at the grandparents’ place but he did not go to school. The school appointed few adults to be sure that every day at least one person is available to assist X. The DYP considers that the mother could do more to ensure her son’s attendance at school.

But on another side, when the school attendance report was provided to her, the DYP worker did not communicate with the mother to confront her with this situation despite the delay of 3 weeks between the reception of this report and the date of the hearing. [ 14 ] The mother still wants the best for her son, but she does not know how to motivate him. During the meeting with Dr.

Nadeau, the mother explained that X grew up and mature a lot. [ 15 ] The school non-attendance has important impacts on various spheres of X’s life (social, educational, development), but despite that, it is noted that his behaviour improved a lot at home as well as in the community. [ 16 ] During the day, X is helping the hunters a lot in the community and help them to fill up the community fridge.

The DYP worker has no more information about his whereabouts and does not exactly know what he learned from the hunters while he was with them. [ 17 ] The DYP worker considers that an external educator could be beneficial for this family, but there is no external educator providing service in the village A. Analysis [ 18 ] As recognized by each party and shown by the evidence, the situation of the adolescent remains endangered. [ 19 ] The situation is improving regarding his aggressiveness which is very positive. He is also active in his community, he loves hunting and he is motivated by such activities.

Being occupied with hunting helps him to enhance his self-esteem. [ 20 ] Unfortunately, his school attendance remains an issue. In the previous decision, the Court noted the lack of measures taken by the school to ensure X’s attendance and to respect the Court order.

Today the evidence shows that the school took the appropriate measures to ensure his presence. [ 21 ] X was made aware by his lawyer about the importance to attend school and the possibility that the DYP could request for a more drastic measure. [ 22 ] As mentioned by his lawyer, it would be important to understand why he refuses to go to school and to find a solution adapted to his specific situation.

A positive approach would be more appropriate than blaming him because he does not attend school. [ 23 ] Despite the fact that the school is mandatory, it is important to note that he is occupied during the day and those activities are beneficial for him. But for sure, such activities will have to be more organized than it is today. [ 24 ] The Court will not render any precise decision regarding the organization of those activities because it is not appropriate in this situation to have too strict rules.

But for sure, the purpose for a more structured activity is for the DYP to be informed about the exact situation of the adolescent and for the parents to know exactly where their son is, with whom and what he is doing. If X is part of a hunters’ group, the DYP will have to communicate with them and to make them involved in the adolescent’s situation. [ 25 ] Regarding the medical aspect, the Court maintains the decisions rendered before and will order that the parents receive more information about their son’s specific medical needs.

It is important that the DYP is also aware of those medical appointments and to be present to make sure that the parents participate well and that they understand well. This will help the parents to have the proper tools to intervene with their son.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are still endangered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with his parents; [ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that X regularly sleeps at his grandparents’ place; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to develop skills and autonomy; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the plan regarding X’s schooling or participation to another kind of program be discussed with the parents and X and clearly organized; [ 34 ] If X attends school, ORDERS that the youth be provided with a shadow and with individual support at school; [ 35 ] ORDERS the parents to meet with the doctor in the presence of the DYP worker to have a final diagnosis about a possible ADHD and ODD and to obtain more information about this situation (diagnosis, treatment, medication, side effects, alternatives to medication, advantages of medication, etc.); [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents meet specifically with Dr.

Berry as recommended by Dr. Nadeau. If Dr.

Berry is not available, RECOMMENDS that the parents meet with a doctor having the same specialty; [ 37 ] ORDERS that Director of Youth Protection be informed of the date and place of those medical appointments; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until December 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: February 23, 2021