2013 QCCQ 19661, 2013 QCCQ 19661

Protection de la jeunesse — 138326 2013 QCCQ 19661 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-027699-131 Date: October 18, 2013 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2001 [Social Worker 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother (deceased) -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 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 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 18, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a twelve year-old child. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated September 18, 2013 are as follows: 3.1. in 2010, the child's mother and brother died in a fire that destroyed their home; 3.2. since October 2012, the child has been the subject of an Agreement on Voluntary Measures, due to chronic neglect issues, instability, and the untreated need for the child to receive ongoing therapeutic intervention; 3.3. the father has collaborated with the intervention by maintaining regular contact with the youth protection worker; 3.4. however, the situation has remained problematic and unstable, and the father has not been transparent with the worker; 3.5. the father did not follow through with the recommended services for himself, such as anger management and addiction counselling;

3.6. in the fall of 2012, the child underwent a psycho-educational assessment, which determined that he had significant learning difficulties, and recommended that he undergo a psychiatric assessment; 3.7. in February 2013, the child underwent a psychiatric assessment at the A Hospital, which concluded that the child does not have a psychiatric disorder and does not suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; 3.8. it was then recommended that he be tested for ADHD and that he attend a social skills group, among other things; 3.9. the father did not follow through with the referral to a social skills group for the child; 3.10. the child demonstrates certain behavioiural (sic) problems at school, and requires intensive supervision; 3.11. following charges of assault and harassment against his girlfriend C in 2012, the father has Criminal Court conditions not to be in contact with her; 3.12. in the past, breaches of these conditions have led to periods of incarceration for the father and during his incarceration, the father did not made (sic) any appropriate back-up plans for the child; 3.13. the father initially stated that he was not in contact with C, however later revealed that he would see her occasionally while the child was at school or camp; 3.14. on September 14, 2013, due to his unstable relationship with C and his ongoing contact with her, the father was again arrested for again breaching conditions and no back-up plan had been arranged for the child's care, despite recommendations to do so; 3.15. information is to the effect that the father is to remain incarcerated at least until October 10, 2013; 3.16. the child disclosed that he and his father had been living for some time with C and her four children, all of which are followed by the Director of Youth Protection for reasons of neglect or risk of neglect; 3.17. on September 16, 2013, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was temporarily entrusted to his cousin; 3.18. the milieu of the cousin is not appropriate for the child on a longer-term basis, and placement in a foster family is indicated (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family, with a possible reintegration to his father's care in three months, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The child's father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The child, assisted by Me Leclerc, also admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures.

He added that the child is happy in his current foster home and wants to remain there until he can be returned to his father's care. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-9 as evidence: D-1: Child's Birth Certificate; D-2: Police Incident Report, dated July 7, 2012; D-3: Police Incident Report, dated August 6, 2012; D-4: Police Incident Report, dated August 20, 2012; D-5: Agreement on Voluntary Measures, dated October 15, 2012; D-6: Psycho-Educational Assessment, prepared by D, dated December 10, 2012; D-7: Police Incident Report, dated September 14, 2013; D-8: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated October 11, 2013; D-9: Extract of A Hospital file for the child. [ 8 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 9 ] Moreover, since the motion was filed, the father has been released and is now living with an aunt until he can make arrangements to find his own place to live. [ 10 ] He was sentenced to three years of probation and sixty hours of community work. He claims to have no intention of ever contacting his former girlfriend again. [ 11 ] He appears anxious to be close to his son with whom he is openly affectionate.

However, he is fully satisfied that his son's needs are being met in his current foster home which is the home of Reverend E who was already known to the family in the community. [ 12 ] He expressed reservations in discussions with the worker about participating in certain programs to address the difficulties impacting his ability to effectively parent his son:

Mr. B formerly did not express interest or desire in attending any sort of program (i.e. receiving anger management training, consulting with an addictions counselor) to concretize the gains that he believed he was making, though he had stated that he would do such a program if it was absolutely required. [1] [ 13 ] However, at the hearing, he expressed his willingness to participate in both family and individual counselling, if necessary. He is strongly encouraged to do so. [ 14 ] As for the child numerous concerns were reported regarding the child's behavior and a referral for a psychiatric assessment was made.

Unfortunately many of the recommendations have either not been implemented yet or have not been followed and the father will need to be more diligent in the future. [ 15 ] As summarized in the most recent court report: In December 2012, the undersigned made a referral to the A Hospital Child Psychiatry Unit for X to receive services. Mr. B completed the necessary forms prior to the assessment meeting and completed an administrative intake as requested by the hospital team. The family was seen at the A Pavillion on February 26, 2013; both X and his father requested that the undersigned attend this meeting as well.

The family was evaluated by child psychiatrist Dr. F, social worker G, and a social work intern. The family was interviewed in the presence of the undersigned, alone, and then X was interviewed alone.

Following this intake, the following recommendations were proposed : 1) that X submit to testing for ADHD and participate in the hospital's medication trial ; 2) that X be referred to a social skills group which meets on Saturdays for children with ADHD; 3) a referral to a nutritionist , either through the hospital or CLSC, based on X's expressed interest in learning how to eat more healthfully and lose weight; and 4) ongoing services through DYP (the psychiatrist specifically recommended Family Preservation ) to address the ongoing situation of instability in the home, and providing an educator in the home to work on routine and stability .

Dr. F stated that she did not observe any significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in X She discussed at length the various methods that Mr. B has employed to deal with the significant loss of X's mother and brother in a tragic house fire, and encouraged him to remain open to conversation with his son about the event and feelings that arise from the loss. Following this assessment, the treating team reported that they would better be able to fully assess X's needs once these issues (specifically X's attentional difficulties and the family's instability) have been addressed.

X's medication trial was due to commence in the spring, however there was not enough time between when the team was ready to begin and the end of the school year. He had his first intake appointment on September 25, 2013, and will likely start the medication trial closer to November 2013. A Hospital social worker G reported that Mr.

B had been instructed that the social skills group would begin in the spring of 2013, but there was no follow-up by the father, and X was not brought to any of the Saturday sessions [2] (emphasis added). [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded. [ 17 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 38 b) 1) et 38 b) 2) 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: [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of nine months, with a possible reintegration to his father's care in three months, if the situation allows; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is to remain in his current foster family which is that of Reverend E; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary, and that they be encouraged as much as possible, taking into account the child's needs and wishes; [ 23 ] ORDERS the father to ensure that the child does not come into contact with Ms.

C; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child receive the health care and services recommended in his psychiatric evaluation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the father ensure all of the child's educational, recreational, medical, dental and psychological needs are met as required, in a timely fashion; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek services, including a substance abuse program and/or meeting with a personal counselor; [ 27 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father and child follow the recommendations in the child's evaluation from the A Hospital, more particularly: 1) que le jeune participe à l'étude en double-aveugle afin de préciser l'impact d'une médication sur son fonctionnement cognitif et comportemental.

Cette démarche pourrait fournir plus d'information au père sur un traitement possible; 2) le jeune participe à la remédication scolaire (6 sessions), à la formation aux habiletés sociales (8 sessions) et que le père participe à la formation aux habiletés parentales (8 sessions) en lien avec le TDAH [3] ; [ 28 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child and father benefit from family counselling, as soon as appropriate;

[ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father's agreement to do so; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for Batshaw Youth and Family Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Davis / AN4187 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michel Leclerc / AX2825 Attorney for the child TD/vl