2016 QCCQ 3049, 2016 QCCQ 3049

Protection de la jeunesse — 161441 2016 QCCQ 3049 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 115-41-000071-159 DATE: January 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2001 Adolescent -and- A -and- 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 ] On September 15, 2015, the Courts orders that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June of this year. [ 2 ] The mother now asks the Court to revise that judgment and order that the adolescent return home to his parents. The father and the youth share the mother’s position.

The director of youth protection (DYP) agrees that things are going a lot better but pleads that a progressive integration, for the next two months, would be in the best interest of the adolescent. [ 3 ] The youth has been residing in a rehabilitation centre since July of last year. When he is removed from his family environment, he shows serious behavioural disturbances. He drinks alcohol on a daily basis and also smokes cannabis. He gets highly intoxicated and it puts his mental health at stake.

His situation at the time is very serious. [ 4 ] Following his integration in a rehabilitation centre in July, the adolescent remains sober. He cooperates with all the professionals who help him. His behaviour in the unit is excellent. He is polite and respects rules and people. He receives therapy in regards with his drug and alcohol issues as well as psychological counselling. [ 5 ] The youth comes to visit his family on a regular basis, despite the distance between his home and the rehabilitation centre. For the holidays, he stays home for an extended visit.

All the family appreciates the time spent together and the visits go well. The adolescent spends most of his time at home and behaves adequately. He respects his parents’ authority and the rules they put in place. The mother says they have their ups and downs, but nothing compared to what they had to cope with in a recent past. [ 6 ] The adolescent is consistent in taking his ADHD medication in the unit and at home. He submits himself to random drug tests and all the results are negative. [ 7 ] The youth attends school in the unit and provides appropriate efforts.

He has plans for the future and education is important to him. [ 8 ] The parents are very supportive of their son. They maintain daily contact with him. They are happy to note the positive changes in their son’s behaviour and attitude.

[ 9 ] The parents cooperate with the DYP and other professionals. Unfortunately, they could not work with a specialized educator because the service was not provided despite being ordered several months ago. It is only very recently, a couple of days prior to the hearing, that the educator meets with the family. [ 10 ] All the parties agree that the situation permits to foresee the adolescent returning home sooner than expected. [ 11 ] However, the DYP worries about a possible relapse if the integration takes place immediately and on a full time basis. Doing it progressively would minimize the risks.

According to the DYP’s plan, the adolescent would go to school in his area from now on, spend most of the time at home, but go back to the unit on four occasions before coming home permanently. [ 12 ] That project is not unreasonable, but it does not appear necessary. [ 13 ] Coming back to his home and social environment will be a challenge for the adolescent. To maintain his good intentions will be more difficult when in contact with his old friends and acquaintances. However, the evidence convinces the Court that the youth is ready to come back home.

With professional help and support from his parents, the youth appears ready to undertake that additional step. [ 14 ] To help prevent and deal with potential problems, an extension of the follow-up, for several months, is required, as everybody admits. [ 15 ] The petition is well founded, in the best interest of the adolescent. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition for revision of order; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to his mother and his father; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP on the measures they apply; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent pursue his addictions follow-up, as long as requested by the professional; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his family benefit from an external educator follow-up; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all specific health care and health services required by his situation; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent participate and follow the recommendations of the different professionals, as long as indicated by the professionals; [ 24 ] ACKNOWLEDGES the parties’ consent and AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in the follow-up to exchange information; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents participate actively in all the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the adolescent and his family until December 31, 2016; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Mélissa Plourde

for the petitioner Me Sébastien Caron for the adolescent Me Hugo Caissy for the parents Date of hearing: January 28, 2016 Written judgment filed on February 1, 2016