2018 QCCQ 20670, 2018 QCCQ 20670

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811464 2018 QCCQ 20670 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-028924-140 DATE : September 13, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X, born […], 2009 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on May 11, 2017, thereby entrusting X to the care of his mother, along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures for a period of one year. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that with the support of therapeutic and academic services, X’s situation has stabilized in his mother’s care. Continued support is required however considering that the child still suffer setbacks at school.

Furthermore, the complicated family dynamics justify maintaining the Director’s intervention. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is asking to extend the entrustment order with a social follow-up and other measures for a period of one year. [ 4 ] Both parents admit the majority of the allegations and consent to the measures as proposed. However, the father expresses concern regarding the modalities of contact between the child and his brother Y. Currently, contact between the two is supervised by a third party as determined by the social worker.

The father submits that his presence with the boys is adequate and he questions the purpose of supervision by another third party in those circumstances. [ 5 ] The attorney representing the child is of the opinion that the Director’s recommendations meet the child’s needs and best interest. The Situation [ 6 ] Essentially, the evidence establishes the following: [ 7 ] Since the last court order, the child has undergone two separate psycho-educational assessments for the purpose of establishing a proper intervention plan that addresses his academic and personal difficulties.

Although the child’s overall cognitive functioning is found to be in the average range, his attention, concentration and organizational skills are weak. The assessments also highlight the need to work on his self-esteem and autonomy. [ 8 ] Accordingly, the following services have been put into place: play therapy, psycho-educational interventions, extra tutoring and music therapy. [ 9 ] There is a consensus amongst all the professionals involved with the child (academic, therapeutic and medical), that he displays

significant symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. Among other things, the child is constantly fidgety at school, lacks concentration and has difficulty following the teachings. Consequently, he systematically falls behind in many subjects despite extra help. [ 10 ] As a result, the child often appears sad and frustrated with his poor academic performance, leading to some oppositional and defiant behaviour at school. He has since been referred to […] Elementary School A which offers […] Program A for flexible and individualized teaching in smaller groups.

The child has adjusted well to date and appears happy with the teaching methods that allow him to go at his own pace. [ 11 ] Although the use of medication for ADHD has been consistently recommended for X, the father refuses to provide consent, disagreeing in principle with such a course of treatment. The Court is sensitive to the father’s position. That being said, should the child’s situation fail to improve despite all the services put into place, the father’s position will need to be revisited and reviewed.

The current impact of the child’s academic difficulties on his emotional state is highly prejudicial to his well-being. Although the change of schools has had a positive effect to date, the long term results will determine whether further intervention is required. [ 12 ] Regarding the family dynamics and interpersonal relations, some progress has been observed. The parents’ conflictive relationship has shown signs of improvement albeit with occasional setbacks.

It should be noted that the tension between the two remains palpable despite the improvement. [ 13 ] Visits between the child and his older brother have produced mitigated results. Although the boys clearly wish to spend time together, Y’s behavioural difficulties remain problematic in the context of their relationship and certain regrettable incidents have been noted. [ 14 ] The social worker has expressed his intention to maintain supervision by a third party other than the parents for a while longer with the objective of allowing parental supervision in the short term if the situation allows.

Considering the history between the two boys and the child’s heightened vulnerability, a certain measure of prudence is justified. [ 15 ] Overall, the child’s situation is gradually improving. The implementation of specialized services coupled with the structure offered by the mother has allowed for noticeable improvements.

Nevertheless, the persistence of the child’s emotional fragility and academic difficulties justifies the continuation of the Director’s intervention. [ 16 ] After considering all of the evidence, and taking into account the consent of the parties, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 18 ] THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to the care of the mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his brother Y be determined by the Director, including supervision; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the child and his parents follow through with the recommendations stemming from the psychiatric, psychological and psycho-educational assessments; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health services including psycho-educational intervention; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents seek and participate in individual support and/or therapeutic services to address their parenting and personal issues; [ 27 ] ORDERS that both parents not expose the child to their conflicts; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that both parents agree to refrain from discussing with the child the relevancy of him having to attend therapy nor the medication nor the content of the therapy; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents develop an effective form of communication while exchanging information regarding the child; [ 30 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of both parents’ consent; AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain and share pertinent and necessary information with any treating professional or support services other than individual therapy with respect to the father, except for the purpose of ensuring his presence in such services; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 33 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. SIGNED IN TOWN A On September 26, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Dominique Douglas Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the child Date of hearing: September 13, 2018 KO/lf