2020 QCCQ 13851, 2020 QCCQ 13851

Protection de la jeunesse — 202106 2020 QCCQ 13851 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 000896-180 DATE: January 29, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2007 child and A mother B interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on January 29, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered by the Honourable Peggy Warolin on May 8, 2019. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until August 30, 2020 and that diverse support measures be ordered until January 31, 2021. [ 4 ] The mother enters the Court room but expressively mentioned that she is refusing to talk. [ 5 ] Mr.

B, interested party, disagree with the Director’s plan. He proposes to care for the child immediately. He agrees with the recommended support measures. [ 6 ] The child wishes to stay with his mother. If this is not possible, he wishes to stay with Mr. B. Questions in litigation [ 7 ] Is it possible for the child to remain entrusted to his mother or to be entrusted to Mr. B? [ 8 ] If not, are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] In May 2019, the child participated in a psychological evaluation.

It was noted that, at the time, the child was not taking his prescribed medication on a regular basis. The psychologist reported that “( the child’

s) affective assessment results are indicative of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) elements and complex developmental trauma (multiple adverse life experiences at an early age and in an interpersonal contexts). He is a very fragile child with whom establishing a trusting therapeutical relationship will require time .” [1] [ 10 ] As prescribed by the previous Court order, the child reintegrated his mother’s care during the summer. At the time, while benefiting from the [Home A]’s structure, his behaviours had generally improved.

[ 11 ] On July 29, 2019, the child has been put on a waiting list at the CLSC to receive psychological follow-up. During his testimony, the Youth Protection worker reported that it would have been possible for the child to be seen by a psychologist (either in person or by visio-conference), but that the mother refused to come to the office. [ 12 ] Following the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year, the situation in school escalated again.

While at school, the child presented with disturbing behaviours (screaming, throwing rocks, bullying, being physically aggressive with peers, smoking marijuana). [ 13 ] An individualized intervention plan was made prioritizing the child’s respect for the rules and his social skills development. The child was to be followed by a psycho-educator. [ 14 ] On November 4, 2019, the police was called to school as the child physically assaulted another peer. [ 15 ] Despite the intensive support put in place, on November 21, 2019, the child was expelled from school. He has remained suspended since.

This is very disturbing. The child is 13 years old and should attend school on a regular basis. The Director will have to lobby and make arrangements with the school for him to be registered again. [ 16 ] In the mother’s home, the child cannot sleep in his own bedroom as his brother had installed a stove and drug paraphernalia in that room. [ 17 ] For some time, the family received the support from an external educator, Ms. C. Rules, structure and routine were topics that were worked on. The mother reports that the child’s behaviours have improved at home.

He respects curfew and rules more than before and helps in the house. As the support service was stopped, it was observed that the situation deteriorated. As an example, at one point, the child did not respect his curfew and returned home at 2:00 a.m. during the week. [ 18 ] The mother stopped collaborating with the school. Her collaboration with the Director is difficult. She has not ensured that the child attends, on a regular basis, his appointments with Dr. Michele Larose, psychiatrist. She has not ensured that the child be seen by a psychologist.

She has not ensured that the child take his medication on a regular basis. She has not ensured that the child attends school. She is failing to meet the child’s needs on numerous levels. [ 19 ] The child has not visited Mr. B as often as Mr. B would have liked. [ 20 ] On July 19, 2019, the Director concluded that the child’s security or development was endangered as he was subject to unreasonable methods of upbringing by his mother and by Mr. B. [ 21 ] On several occasions, the mother hit the child when he wanted to visit Mr. B. She made threats to punch him if he stayed with Mr.

B. [ 22 ] When the child would not listen to Mr. B, he would have grabbed him, slapped him and told him hurtful comments. Mr. B recognized having slapped the child on the stomach area. He has agreed to work with the external educator to address this issue. He provides good collaboration with the Director and with the school. His willingness and love for the child is not in question. Mr. B still needs to work on his parental abilities (how to apply rules, curfew, and consequences). [ 23 ] The mother has not been able to provide the structure needed by the child and to support him attending school.

At this point, the child needs a greater structure than what can be offered by the mother. When he returned living with his mother, he lost his references. We need to return to the basics with him. He needs to learn about respecting others, respecting rules, understanding the impact of his actions on others. [ 24 ] As mother is not collaborating anymore, the file should be returned to the Tribunal before any reintegration of the child to his family milieu.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 27 ] EXTENDS and REVISES the order rendered on May 8, 2019; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until August 30, 2020; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child attend school as soon as possible; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection take steps with the school for the child to be reintegrated in school as soon as possible; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services that his condition requires, more specifically that the child be assessed in audiology, that someone ensure that the child takes his prescribed medication and that the child participate in psychological counseling; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child, his mother and Mr.

B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child, his mother and Mr. B report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to

inform him of the current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child, his mother and Mr. B receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professional; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning her personal issues; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, the mother and Mr.

B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until August 30, 2020; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on February 13, 2020 /cd Mtre Geneviève Apollon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Kelly Ann Sinnett Counsel for the child Mtre Nada Boumeftah Counsel for Mr. B Date of hearing: January 29, 2020