2016 QCCQ 17893, 2016 QCCQ 17893

Protection de la jeunesse — 168808 2016 QCCQ 17893 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-021047-089 DATE : May 17, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2000 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on May 17 th , 2016. [ 2 ] In May 2015, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seized Court of motion for revision of a decision rendered on July 15 th , 2014 by Judge Ann-Marie Jones. The Director was asking initially that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] For various reasons, the case had to be postponed on many occasions.

On June 22 nd , 2015, as the mother was absent, the case was postponed to August. On August 28 th , as the mother had just mandated a lawyer, a request for postponement was granted allowing for the lawyer to meet with his client. All parties agreed for the youth to remain fostered in a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] On December 3 rd , 2015, the recommendations of the Director were for the continued entrustment of the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre until June 30 th , 2016.

The mother and the adolescent were opposed to the recommendations of the Director and requested that the adolescent be entrusted immediately to the mother's care. The Court ordered, on an interim basis, continued entrustment of the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre.

[ 5 ] On March 21 st , 2016, the case could not be continued as the youth had just returned the day before, from a three week absence from the rehabilitation centre. [ 6 ] Finally, the inquiry was concluded on May 17 th , 2016. Again, the recommendations of the Director had changed in that it was recommended that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30 th , 2016, that he then be entrusted to the care of his mother and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided until majority ([...], 2018). [ 7 ] Most of the facts alleged in the motion are admitted by the adolescent.

He does not deny his behavioural disturbances and the fact that he was fostered in different units since the decision rendered in July 2014. [ 8 ] Although the youth has complied with the different court orders entrusting him to a rehabilitation centre up until December 2015, he made it clear that day that he wanted to be entrusted back to the care of his mother since it was her wish to have him back home.

It is with no surprise that in May, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the youth was in agreement with the recommendations presented by the Director as his return home was imminent. [ 9 ] In a similar fashion, the mother has admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion, recognizing the serious behavioural disturbances exhibited by her son. In December 2015, the mother expressed clearly wanting her son to be entrusted back to her care.

She is in agreement with the final recommendations presented by the Director and agrees with the involvement of the Director until the adolescent reaches his age of majority. CONTEXT [ 10 ] From July to the fall of 2014, the adolescent is placed at Hawkins group home.

Due to his difficulties respecting curfew, his frequent absences from school and his use of drugs, he is moved to a more structured unit until January 2015 when he was returned to Hawkins group home. [ 11 ] After a short period of time during which the adolescent's behaviour appears to have stabilized, his behaviour deteriorates to a point where the adolescent is moved, once again, in May 2015, to Lorien, a more structured unit. [ 12 ] During the fall of 2015, while the adolescent is attending [High School A] and living at Lorien, his situation improves.

The adolescent is doing well in school and has good results. He talks positively about his future and wishes to finish high school and go to college. He is doing well in the unit, following the rules of the program. [ 13 ] He visits his mother regularly on weekends. He returns to the unit on time, as expected. Clearly, the youth expresses feeling angry about his situation, wishing to be back in the city as soon as possible. [ 14 ] Although it has not been easy to work with the mother, she is making progress and has made efforts to be more open and willing to try and work with the Director.

Especially since the fall of 2015, a change in attitude is noted and the mother has demonstrated that she can work collaboratively with the Director. [ 15 ] As recommended by the Court, the adolescent is transferred to a group home in Montreal on February 15 th , 2016. He attends school at [High School B], in grade 10. [ 16 ] The transition to the group home is difficult and after two weeks, the adolescent went missing for a period of approximately three weeks. Upon his return, the adolescent explains that he did not like being at the group home as he felt scared taking the metro in this area.

The neighbourhood is rough, there are gangs and he is not comfortable in his new surroundings. [ 17 ] The youth is moved to St-James group home in March where he remains since and manages much better. [ 18 ] Despite his recent absence from the group home, the situation of the adolescent has improved even if he had to be moved to different units and change schools.

He maintained his efforts to improve his behaviour and wishes to continue his schooling even if he finds boring the school he is currently attending. [ 19 ] The Court questioned the recommendation of the Director for continued youth protection involvement until majority.

Taking into consideration the improvement of the situation of the adolescent, his imminent return home and the willingness of both mother and son to work collaboratively with the Director, it is hoped that the situation will be corrected within a period of one year. [ 20 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised and that there is a need for continued youth protection involvement. Except for the duration of the court order, the recommendations made by the Director meet the needs of the adolescent and are in his best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30th, 2016; [ 23 ] TAKES NOTE that the reintegration home to his mother's care is commencing today (May 17 th , 2016) and will be completed by June 30th, 2016; [ 24 ] As of June 30th, 2016, the adolescent will be entrusted to the care of his mother;

[ 25 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the adolescent and his father until such time that the father meet with the social worker to discuss his motivation and commitment to have contacts with the adolescent; [ 26 ] Then, ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine the frequency and modalities of contacts, taking into consideration the desire of the adolescent and his best interest; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling services she may need; [ 28 ] ORDERS the adolescent and his mother to collaborate with the Director of the youth protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family for a period of one (1) year; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Louise Denault Attorney for the child Me Josselin Breton Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : May 17 th , 2016