2015 QCCQ 14398, 2015 QCCQ 14398

Protection de la jeunesse — 153381 2015 QCCQ 14398 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 29715-158 Date: June 11, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of June 11, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a ten year-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect to which he is exposed as well as his serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated May 8, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, the parents are separated since June 2014, and the child lives primarily with his mother, while visiting the father on a bi-weekly basis; 3.2. as relevant background information, the child was placed in a Group Home on April 8 th , 2015, after the parents signed a provisional agreement to this effect; 3.3. the Family Preservation Program has been involved with the mother and the child since the beginning of April 2015; 3.4. the child display serious and concerning behavioural disturbances, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) since the separation of his parents, the child has been physically aggressive with his mother;

b) the mother has been in the obligation to call the police on numerous occasions, as the child was physically attacking her;

c) on April 1 st 2015, the child had an aggressive outburst with his mother and a Family Preservation educator;

d) on that same day, the child was brought to the Montreal Children’s Hospital after a police intervention;

e) on April 6 th 2015, the child was out of control, running throughout the neighbourhood, kicking doors;

f) on that same day, the child used a knife to destroy his grandmother’s cake and stabbed his mother with a fork;

g) on April 8 th 2015, the child had an aggressive outburst with his mother, whereby he was kicking and hitting her and attempted to scratch her face;

h) on that same day, the mother called the police and the child was placed in a rehabilitation center;

i) the child continued to display aggressive behaviours in the group home, which brought him to be physically restrained on one occasion;

j) at this time, the child no longer displays aggressive behaviours in the group home, but appears to be defiant and having difficulties to respect authority; 3.5. the department of psychiatry of the A Hospital will be following the child’s situation (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of five months with a gradual reintegration to the care of his parents, as the situation allows, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Denault, admitted all the facts alleged in support of the motion and expressed her consent to all the proposed measures, adding that she is eager to work to help her child and that she wants the father to be very involved with their son. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, made a general admission and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Choquette Stuart, for the child, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-4 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: En liasse, police report no. [1] and no. [2] (already filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.); D-3: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated June 4, 2015; D-4: Psychiatric assessment, prepared by Lily Hechtman, dated April 22, 2015 (filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.). [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 10 ] As summarized in the child’s psychiatric assessment, he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of conduct following his parents’ separation: X is a strong-willed young boy that experienced a chronically disruptive, verbally aggressive parental relationship. X continues to have difficulty adjusting to his parents’ marital separation, for which he blames his mother. He reported intrusive thoughts about the separation that he could only avoid by playing videogames.

His social life has also been disrupted by the change.

X’s parents have also struggled to find ways of providing X with effective parenting following the separation, as limit setting has been inconsistent between the mother, father, and grandmother, and visits with the father have been interrupted for expended periods of time. [2] [ 11 ] The following recommendations were made to help the child adjust: 1) Collaboration with DYP evaluation and temporary group home intervention, which seeks to provide stable, consistent limits 2) Individual therapy for X to help process parents’ separation 3) Parent support/family therapy to help mother and father provide effective parenting throughout the separation [3] [ 12 ] The parents appear to be “motivated and fully collaborative.

They have a clear understanding of the situation and recognize the need for support services” [4] . [ 13 ] The are strongly encouraged to persevere as consistently as possible in their efforts to redress the situation. [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under sections 38 b) 1) iii) and 38

f) 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: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of five months with a gradual reintegration to the care of his parents, as the situation allows;

[ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents meet with the author of the child’s psychiatric assessment [5] so that its content may be explained to them in detail; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that such a meeting be arranged, as quickly as possible, with the assistance of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the recommendations in the assessment be followed, more particularly that the child benefit from individual therapy; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is seeing a psychologist once a week; [ 22 ] ORDERS that he continue to do so for as long as necessary; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator and RECOMMENDS that the maternal grandmother be involved as well to improve the situation in the maternal environment; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother and child plan to work with a group intended to help children with behavioral problems; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that they do so; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 29 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maria Choquette Stuart Attorney for the child Me Louise Denault Attorney for the mother TD/vl