2018 QCCQ 19671, 2018 QCCQ 19671

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810721 2018 QCCQ 19671 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 33948-183 Date: November 20, 2018 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 November 20, 2018, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a thirteen year-old child, based on the psychological ill- treatment and physical abuse to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with similar application regarding the child’s siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated May 11 2018 are as follows: 3.1. the child is the victim of bodily injury by his parents and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) up to May 5, 2018, the child stated that the mother had hit the child on his back with a broom and grabbed the child’s genitals, as well as his neck and threw him on the ground because he had refused to do a task that the mother had requested;

b) the mother admitted to grabbing the child by his genitals for him to remain on the floor;

c) the mother also admitted to holding his throat and letting him go when he could not breathe;

d) the child then ran away from the home without any shoes on, and requested help at a nearby pharmacy;

e) on that same date, the child expressed that he did not want to return home;

f) on that same date, the mother was contacted and confirmed that she did not want to return to her home; 3.2. on May 5, 2018, immediate protective measures were applied and the child was placed in a group home;

3.3. on May 7, 2018, the Honorable Judge Ruth Veillet extended the immediate protective measures; 3.4. on May 8, 2018, the child participated in the “Entente Multi-Sectorielle”; 3.5. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his parents that could cause him harm and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child stated that during an altercation on May 5, 2018, the mother was calling him names and threatened to kill him;

b) up to May 5, 2018, the father has been involved with the child sporadically;

c) since May 5, 2018, the father has been having daily telephone contact with the child (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] The hearing on the merits was scheduled to begin on September 10, 2018. [ 6 ] The mother and the child then both admitted the majority of the alleged facts and acknowledged that the child’s security and development are endangered as a result of the physical abuse and psychological ill-treatment he suffered.

They also agreed to the child’s continued placement in a rehabilitation center. [ 7 ] It should be noted that the Court proceeded despite the father’s absence, given that he was aware of the hearing date and failed to appear without any explanation.

He also indicated that he no longer wished to be involved in the situation and failed to return any of the Director of Youth Protection worker’s calls. [ 8 ] The hearing was scheduled to continue on November 20, 2018 to allow the parties time to respond to the evidence and to obtain the results of the child’s psychological assessment. [ 9 ] However, on October 15, 2018, the mother petitioned the Court to have her son returned to her care.

Her application was granted and the child was entrusted to his mother under certain conditions agreed upon by the parties, including the family’s undertaking to work with an educator. [ 10 ] Only two weeks later, on November 1, 2018, the Court was again seized with an application regarding the child. The Director sought his provisional placement in a rehabilitation center at the mother’s request. She admitted to being overwhelmed and requiring the child’s placement.

The child admitted all the allegations in support of the application and did not oppose the recommended measures. [ 11 ] When the hearing on the merits was finally continued on November 20, 2018, the Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until June 30, 2019. [ 12 ] The mother confirmed her agreement with her son’s continued placement until the end of the school year, as recommended by the Director of Youth Protection.

She also agreed to all the other proposed measures, except individual counselling and the services of an educator. [ 13 ] Me Harvey, who represented the child, also consented to the proposed measures. [ 14 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5 as evidence: D-1: Copy of a child’s Birth certificate; D-2: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 30, 2018; D-3: Police Report bearing event #[...]; D-4: Psychological Evaluation Report, by Dr. Françoise Maheu, dated November 12, 2018; D-5: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated November 13, 2018. [ 15 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes longstanding anger and resentment between mother and son who clearly require the distance resulting from the child’s placement to rebuild their relationship. [ 16 ] The child’s psychological assessment provides important insight on the negative impact the family dynamic has had on his emotional well-being: Emotional and behavioral profiles : During the clinical interviews, both X and his parents reported that X seems to be constantly dealing with tensions and emotional turmoil. These tensions seem to be triggered by different sources.

The episodes of conjugal violence between Mrs. A and Mr. C, as well as Mr. C’s cold, distant and unloving relationship with X could be one of these sources. As such, X reports feeling very frustrated by his step-father, and manifested clearly his resentment towards Mr. C. Another source of tensions could be X’s relationship with his father, Mr. B. Because his father seems to have distanced himself, X is left feeling rejected and abandoned by Mr. B. As well, frustrations in relations with peers in the school or placement settings (group home/rehabilitation centre) could also be stressing and angering X.

Finally, mother-son quarrels seem to be fulling many of the tensions existing in X’s life. All these emotional difficulties seem to leave X extremely frustrated and hurt. This emotional turmoil seems to have fragilized X, as demonstrated via the clinical interview, behavioral and personality questionnaires, as well as the projective tests. Indeed, X appears entangled in intense feelings of dejection and hopefulness, which are interspersed with episodes of anger.

He seems to be struggling in sustaining a consistent sense of self, and maintains affective ambivalences and difficult personal relationships with others. Important feelings of being persecuted, rejected and despised are also present. Consequently, X seems to be resorting to hostile, aggressive behaviors to defend and avenge himself. When confronted with such behaviors, Mrs. A reports feeling overwhelmed, and would not

know how to best intervene with X. [2] [ 17 ] The child’s intense anger and hostility are deemed clinically significant: Elevated levels of hostile behaviors were reported by X on the ASEBA and MACI questionnaires, and by his mother on the ASEBA questionnaire.

Hence, we believe that there are symptoms important enough, and in sufficient number, to meet DSM-V criteria for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) [3] . [ 18 ] He is strongly encouraged to benefit from individual counselling to better control his behavior: […] we believe that X would greatly benefit from therapeutic support, as scientific evidence has shown that intervention and treatment may help children overcome ODD (Mash & Barkely, 2014).

Treatment may also prevent the progression of ODD into a more a serious mental health condition (Mash & Barkely, 2014). [4] [ 19 ] Both mother and son would greatly benefit from a detailed explanation of the child’s psychological evaluation and its conclusions and recommendations. [ 20 ] The child will also need to receive services to help with his academic challenges, namely regarding his Speech and Language Disorder diagnosis (dysphasia) as well as his ADHD.

Despite these challenges, his school has been a very positive influence in his life and every effort should be made to allow him to return to his former school, if possible: According to the vice-principal and youth counsellor, everyone at school would have been surprised and saddened to see X leave on Oct. 30 th . Indeed, they both explain that X would always have behaved properly while in school. He would never have been implicated in quarrels with teachers or peers, would not have receive any detentions.

According to them, X would have enjoyed school, would have done his work in class, would have been polite with teachers and peers alike. X would have had friends at school, and would have been well appreciated and respected by his classmates. He would not have been isolated. Rather the contrary, he would always have had lunch with a group of friends, and his peers would have been easily and positively interacting with him.

He would have been charming with everyone, making himself helpful when needed. [5] [ 21 ] The mother will also need to acquire greater skills at managing her son’s behaviors. [ 22 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by the parties, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (

c) and 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of a rehabilitation center; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that he is currently placed at [centre A] but would like to return to City A and that every effort will be made as soon as his behaviour allows, to have him returned to City A; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the child’s expressed desire to return to his former school as well as the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to encourage and facilitate the child’s return to his former school as he functions well in school and it appears to be a very positive factor in his life; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary, taking into account the child’s wishes and best interest; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator, as soon as possible; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the health care services required by his condition, more particularly that he take medication for ADHD as prescribed and that he benefit from the services recommended in his psychological evaluation, more particularly that he receive individual counselling to address his ODD symptoms, as soon as possible and for as long as necessary; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be offered the opportunity to participate in a “Big Brother Program” and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that steps have already been taken and that he will hopefully be paired with an appropriate “Big Brother” in the coming week; [ 32 ] ORDERS that psychoeducational services be provided to the mother regarding parenting skills to help her better understand the child’s emotional and ODD-behaviors; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child and his mother be offered the opportunity to meet with the author of the child’s psychological evaluation, Dr.

Françoise Maheu, as soon as possible so the content of the report may be explained to them in detail; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive individual counselling; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and

assistance to the child and his family; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , 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; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 2019. Signed on December 17, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the child Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the mother TD/vl