2021 QCCQ 16592, 2021 QCCQ 16592

Protection de la jeunesse — 214667 2021 QCCQ 16592 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002406-194 DATE: May 26, 2021 (written judgment rendered on August 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [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 95 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 review a decision rendered on January 18, 2021, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre until [...], 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his parents and asks to entrust him to a rehabilitation centre with a possible reintegration under his parents’ care, as soon as the situation allows it, until [...], 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent for medical reasons, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Geneviève Lucas. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On April 30, 2020 , the situation of the youth was submitted to the Court. He was 16 years old.

He was in a rehabilitation centre since November 2019, on voluntary measures first, and then under YCJA. The youth was aggressive and impulsive. The parents are separated and the mother is the main caregiver. The youth was also aggressive toward the educator in the rehabilitation centre. He had been transferred in a closed unit and was doing better since that time. The Court declared that the situation of the adolescent was endangered [1] and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre until July 31, 2020, followed by a reintegration at the father’s place.

The Court recommended that the youth continue to benefit from a psychological follow-up, the whole for 12 months. [ 7 ] On July 21, 2020 , the situation was reviewed. Since the last decision, the youth’s reintegration in the rehabilitation centre in City A was tried a few times and each times it was not a success. In City A he could have access to a follow-up with the educator, but he has no access to his psychological follow-up. [Centre A] took the decision to send him back in City B. The parents have a tendency to minimize the seriousness of their son’s behaviour.

The Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre for a period of 6 months followed by a reintegration at the father’s place. The Court also ordered that the youth received a psychological follow-up, the whole until [...], 2021. [ 8 ] On January 18, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. After the last decision, the youth remained in the Group Home in City A

and displayed again very serious behavioural disturbances. He was transferred in a more structure unit in City B and express the desire to stay there. The youth was generally able to improve his behaviour in City B, but still has to work on his issues. The parents are very involved and collaborative, but unable to impose the structure the child needs.

The Court maintained the youth at the rehabilitation centre until [...], 2021, and ordered a progressive reintegration at the father’s place. [ 9 ] On April 12, 2021 , The Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre. Facts [ 10 ] After the last decision, X remained at the rehabilitation centre in City B. The day after the hearing, he accidentally hurt another youth and he was able to admit his behaviour. [ 11 ] From January 22 to January 29, X had a first home visit.

He had various rules to follow and he did it very well. [ 12 ] From February 1 to February 21, 2021, the educators took the decision to entrust him to a close unit due to his behaviours: Persistent bullying, safety concerns (shot a nail gun into the air), not following directives from staff, disrespectful toward staff and peers, lack of accountability about bullying, not respecting the Public health rules and not respecting the basic program. [ 13 ] A second visit took place from February 26 to March 3, 2021, and he had the same rules to respect which he did very well. [ 14 ] Due to the reintegration process, X came back in City C for a third visit from March 16 to March 29.

The visit was positive until March 28, when X stabbed another youth in the eye with a butter knife. He was charged with physical assault and he ran way from the police while he was supposed to return in City B. Due to those facts, the Provincial Director asked that he finished his sentence in custody. [ 15 ] The mother is scared about her son’s behaviour. She deeply loves him, but she is very worrying thinking that he will turn 18 years old soon and will put himself in trouble. She is in agreement with the DYP services and understand the reasons of the different rules.

But sometimes, she could be frustrated and disrespectful with the DYP. In those situations, she came back to apologize, saying that she is ashamed of her son’s behaviours. [ 16 ] At the beginning of the measure, the father showed a lot of stability and motivation to have his son back at home. But the plan changed as he was not able to keep his own house and move back with the mother and the other children. [ 17 ] The father does not seem to realize the gravity of the situation. He continues to think that his son could be back at home soon in a safe way.

Considering the custody, the next visit will take place in City B. [ 18 ] The educators mention that since X is back, the atmosphere at the centre is negative as he has a tendency to control and influence his peers negatively.

The educator has the perception that X does not make a lot of efforts to change his behaviours, as he knows his chance to go back home before he turns 18 are low. [ 19 ] X will remain at [Unit A] until July 11, 2021, and will be transferred after at the Group Home in City A because after July 11, X will not be anymore detained under YCJA. [ 20 ] The DYP is conscious that X committed numerous infractions in City A and it would probably be more appropriate to entrust him somewhere else, but there is no place available. [ 21 ] He will turn 18 years old by the end of August 2021.

As for now, X did not receive any service to prepare him to the adulthood and the autonomy. The DYP worker explains that by the fact that everyone was waiting for the YCJA decision and the Youth Protection decision. Analysis [ 22 ] The situation of the youth remains endangered.

His behaviours are unpredictable and he obviously needs services at least before he turns 18. [ 23 ] But if he needs services regarding his behaviour, he also needs intensive services for him to gain autonomy because since a few months nothing was done. [ 24 ] On August 28, 2021, he will be outside of the Group Home and he will be on his own. He has to be helped on this aspect urgently.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003, are still endangered; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a possible reintegration under his parents’ care, as soon as the situation allows it; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation;

[ 30 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend a school, another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 31 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make urgent steps to offer services to X for him to benefit from help to develop skills and autonomy; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the adolescent and his parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 26, 2021