2017 QCCQ 19911, 2017 QCCQ 19911

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710335 2017 QCCQ 19911 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000213-175 DATE: July 10, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2003 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X are endangered pursuant to paragraph (

f) of

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] For the hearing, the applicant is represented by M e Camille Champeval. M e Constantin Kiryakidis acts on behalf of X who is not present because she is currently in a treatment center in Akwesasne. The mother is not present nor represented. The father is present but not represented by counsel. [ 3 ] All the allegations of the petition are admitted by X through her lawyer. The father, who currently lives in City A, was present when a motion for provisional measures was presented on April 13, but he was not informed that X was sent to a treatment center in Akwesasne.

It was his daughter who contacted him and told him where she was. The father decided to go and visit his daughter. He is very proud of the steps taken by her. [ 4 ] Unfortunately, it seems that the father was kept in the dark during the last months and was unaware of what was going on with his daughter.

He never refused to collaborate with the Social Workers, but it seems that they did not try to reach him in order to assess the whole situation regarding the report made to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 5 ] The Director must be reminded that X has two parents and both should be treated equally, informed of their daughter’s situation and be part of all decisions taken in regards to her future.

The father is right to deplore this situation, and steps must be taken for the father to receive aid, counselling and assistance from a Social Worker of City B or from a Social Worker from City A accepting to collaborate with the Director of City C. [ 6 ] An agreement on voluntary measures was signed on August 5, 2016 for a duration of one year, and consequently X was placed in a reception center for a period of six months for issues related to behavioural disturbances including alcohol consumption. [ 7 ] X continues to display serious behavioural disturbances.

When she is at her mother’s place, she neither respects her authority nor her rules. As for the father, he states that when X is living with him, he has absolutely no problem to impose his authority upon his daughter and to make her respect his rules. [ 8 ] The youth continues to consume alcohol and drugs. On April 3, 2017, she was intoxicated and punched her mother twice with a closed fist after the mother did not authorize her to go out.

[ 9 ] X does not attend school regularly even if she is of school age. During the last year, she was not very collaborative with the Youth Protection Worker, which is not the case anymore. [ 10 ] During the last year, she did not attend the appointments made with the NNADAP Worker. [ 11 ] The evolution report and orientation report are filed. The Court stresses the fact that these reports were not sent to the father prior to the hearing. As a result, the father took knowledge of their content during a court recess.

As only the mother was met, these reports only reflect her opinion, and the father disagrees with some comments about his situation. The father was never asked to give his version or his opinion about the whole situation. [ 12 ] The Court found it useful to remind the Director of his obligations contained in the general principles of the Youth Protection Act : -

Section 2.2 – Responsibility of parents The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents. -

Section 2.4 – Considerations Every person having responsibilities towards a child under this Act, and every person called upon to make decisions with respect to a child under this Act shall, in their interventions, take into account the necessity […] (3) of ensuring that the parents have understood the information or explanations that must be furnished to them under this Act; (4) of giving the child and the child’s parents an opportunity to present their points of view, express their concerns and be heard at the appropriate time during the intervention ; and […] [ 13 ] Clearly, in the present situation, the Director of Youth Protection failed to respect his responsibilities towards the father under the Youth Protection Act . [ 14 ] This being said, the father agrees with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection regarding X.

M e Constantin Kiryakidis, acting on behalf of the child, also agrees with these recommendations. [ 15 ] The Court is of the opinion that these measures are likely to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of X and that they are in her best interest.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of six months; [ 19 ] ORDERS X to complete her treatment program in Akwesasne and to follow all recommendations made to her by the professionals; [ 20 ] ORDERS X to collaborate with an aftercare follow-up in order not to relapse; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the situation of the father be assessed by the Youth Protection Worker; [ 22 ] ORDERS that both parents be assessed as to where X’s reintegration will take place to ensure that her best interests are met; [ 23 ] ORDERS that X refrain from any substance consumption (alcohol and drug); [ 24 ] ORDERS a close follow-up for X and both parents and that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year; [ 25 ] ORDERS that X receive professional counselling for anger issues; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents be encouraged, but supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and frequency; [ 27 ] ORDERS that both parents be and remain sober at all times when in presence of X; [ 28 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate to the execution of the Court orders, if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders.

__________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. M e Camille Champeval DYP A Lawyer for the applicant M e Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the child Date of hearing: May 24, 2017