2019 QCCQ 15210, 2019 QCCQ 15210

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910366 2019 QCCQ 15210 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000939-196 DATE: April 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 15, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [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 38 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 declare that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii. [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court is also seized with the situation of his brother Y, who is 11 years old. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me St-Amand. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. [ 5 ] X who is 13 years old, is present and represented by Me Jennis. He admits some of the allegations, and he agrees with the measures. Facts [ 6 ] The situation of the two boys is known from the DYP since 2014, because of few reports received regarding them.

For some of them, the facts were not founded and for other ones, the security and development were not considered in danger. [ 7 ] On March 21, 2016, another report was retrained regarding negligence in terms of physical needs as the parents would fail to provide food for their children. The evaluation was done and the DYP concluded, one year later, that the situation of the two boys was endangered [2] . On March 8, 2017, voluntary measures were signed and the children were maintained with their parents with aid, counselling and assistance.

Those voluntary measures were renewed in December 2017. [ 8 ] On January 31, 2018, another report was received after a fight between the father, while he was intoxicated, and Y. The mother was intoxicated at the neighbour’s house, but she intervened and called the police for assistance. The little sister was present and witnessed the scene. X was absent at that time. The DYP concluded to an isolated event and did not conclude that the situation would be endangered for risk of physical abuse.

The follow-up continued to be done on the aspects of negligence. [ 9 ] In December 2018, the voluntary measures were renewed again. [ 10 ] X is described as a healthy and good nature boy. He is in first Secondary in the English program. He is not dedicated to schoolwork, and he is escaping school classes often. He is playing hockey in the Hockey Team of Town A. He loves being at the Youth Centre. His parents have to insist for him to come earlier at home after hockey, but this aspect is challenging.

[ 11 ] The DYP requested a psychological evaluation for X as ADHD is suspected. The parents agree with this evaluation. [ 12 ] The family receives the services of an external educator once every two weeks. The objective is to help the parents to impose a structure to ensure the schooling of their children. [ 13 ] On January 23, 2019, a meeting took place at school with the mother, the children, the external educator and the teacher of each child. According to his teacher, X has a hard time to stay focussed, he is often running around the hallways or playing with his iPod.

He saw that X refused to put efforts even if he is able to do it. His attendance at school was around 50%. At the end of the meeting, his teacher promised him to have a reward at the end of the week if he comes at school. That worked and X was present for around 80% of the week, but only for that week.

The week after which was an exam week, X was not present and did not pass his exams. [ 14 ] Starting in March, still with promise of rewards, with the help of the external educator and the collaboration of the mother, X improved his attendance. [ 15 ] The parents are conscious about their alcohol consumption issues. They are aware of the resources available in the community, but they did not reach them. Nevertheless, they were able to reduce their consumption since the DYP is involved.

Moreover, before drinking they are now able to take steps to set out a safety plan for the children. [ 16 ] Their financial situation improved since the mother has a new job, so their difficulty to provide food for their children diminish a lot. They also benefit from help of the extended family. Analysis [ 17 ] Considering the evidence and the admissions made by the parties, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the children are endangered. [ 18 ] The measures suggested are in their best interest.

The psychological evaluation, even if already requested, will be ordered as it’s a necessity in the situation of those children. It’s urgent to know what it’s so difficult for them to go to school. More we wait to impose this routine to them, more difficult it will be to convince them to go to school. [ 19 ] This evaluation will help the school, the DYP, the external educator and the parents to intervene with their sons according to their respective specific needs. [ 20 ] The parents are collaborative and want the best for their children. They deserve to receive the appropriate tools to do it.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are in danger under

section 38 (b) (1) iii. of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with the parents; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their youth’s regard to put an end to the situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a daily basis; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive the services of an external educator until no longer deemed necessary by professionals; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a psychological evaluation of the youth be performed and the recommendations be followed; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the youth’s medical and schooling’s files, and to provide a copy to the psychologist; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and his family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] THE WHOLE until December 31, 2019.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the youth Me Félix St-Amand, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: April 17, 2019