2016 QCCQ 18266, 2016 QCCQ 18266

Protection de la jeunesse — 169143 2016 QCCQ 18266 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-031628-167 DATE: October 13, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LINE BACHAND THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A and X Born on [...], 2001 child and A B parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court is seized with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security and the development of X, 15 years old, be declared in danger because of his serious behavioural disturbances. [ 2 ] X and his parents recognize the situation as reported in the motion filed by the Director of Youth Protection (Director).

Consequently, they admit that the security or development of X is in danger because of his serious behavioural disturbances as described in the motion. [ 3 ] To correct the situation, the Director recommends that X remain in a rehabilitation center for a period of 3 months with reintegration to his parents care during this time if the situation allows. A social follow up is also asked with an order that X attend school on a daily basis and on time.

X is not in agreement with the measure suggesting that he would be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for 3 months, even if a progressive reintegration to his parents care is asked. He wants to go back home today. Through his lawyer, he is also asking the Court to order that a psychological therapy be available if it is needed. The parents are in agreement with all the measures suggested including the placement of X for 3 months with reintegration to their home if the situation allows.

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS [ 4 ] Last September 20th, the Court ordered the provisional compulsory placement of X in a rehabilitation center until today’s

hearing. Before said order, X was living with his parents and his younger sister. [ 5 ] In January 2016, X and his parents signed voluntary measures due to the adolescent’s behavioural difficulties. Following those measures, X and his parents received a social follow up. Mainly, the goals were to correct the behavioural disturbances of X and to strengthen the parenting skills of his parents. To reach these objectives, X had to respect the authority of his parents and authority figures. He had to understand what motivate his behaviours and he had to take responsability for his actions.

The parents had to provide consistent structure and support for his schooling. [ 6 ] At the hearing, X and his parents declare that they are in agreement with the content of the report of the Director filed as D-4. On page 5 of said report, the Applicant, Mr. [Social Worker 1] explains why he is asking for the placement measure of 3 months with a progressive reintegration: « In

summary, X came to the attention of youth protection due to school absenteeism and defiance of adult authority both at home and at school. Family dynamics appeared to play a critical role leading up to the present.

This dynamic included parental approaches that clashed and provided X mixed messages.[…]Interventions at school as well as home with youth protection workers since January 27th 2016 appeared to have little effect on X’s behaviour leading to his placement on September 20th 2016. […] X ability to manage his affairs and attend school on time since his placement is indicative of his potential and consistent with his psychological evaluation and École A’s assessment directing him to Centre d’intégration Scolaire.

The question this worker posed the family on September 30th 2016 and the subsequent responses as indicated above suggest that little of significance has changed in the family dynamics. X’s response to a threat of adversity from adult authority (which on September 30th 2016 was only a forum for discussion) and Ms. A’s attempt to minimize his reaction continues to reflect the vulnerability of the situation marked by ambiguous limits and boundaries that X struggles to respect.

For these reasons immediate re-integration is not indicated and a progressive re- integration over three (3) months would better facilitate a permanent return home as solutions to some of the outstanding issues can be worked out. » [ 7 ] The Court understands that X believes that he has learned his lesson during his short period of provisional placement. Considering the dynamic of the family, the Court is also convinced that it will take more than words to change the behaviours of X and to help the parents apply their parental authority without mixed messages.

The fact that X showed that he is able to respect authority and attend school during his placement is a good indicator of future success. Another positive indicator is the position of the parents who said at the hearing that they both are in agreement with the measures suggested by the Director. [ 8 ] CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 10 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X is in danger because of his serious behavioural disturbances under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act; [ 11 ] AND, TO PUT AN END TO THE SITUATION: [ 12 ] ORDERS that X be placed in a rehabilitation center for a period of 3 months with reintegration in his parents care during this time, if the situation allows; [ 13 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a daily basis and on time; [ 14 ] RECOMMENDS that X follow the recommendations of his psychological evaluation; [ 15 ] RECOMMENDS family counselling; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the family for a period of one year; [ 17 ] ORDERS that a psychological therapy be available for X if it is needed; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 19 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary

__________________________________ Line BACHAND, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : October 13, 2016 Me Marie-Josée PAIEMENT Attorney of the Director of Youth Protection A Me Alec FAFARD Attorney for the adolescent