2020 QCCQ 9634, 2020 QCCQ 9634

Protection de la jeunesse — 203240 2020 QCCQ 9634 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY 0F [...] “Youth Division” No.: 525-41-035782-192 DATE: June 12, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of X Born on [...], 2003 Director of Youth Protection Petitioner -et- A -and- B Impleaded parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] X is a 17 year old adolescent who is entrusted to a reception center since February 5 th , 2020 following a decision of the Court for provisional compulsory foster care. [ 2 ] On March 31 st , 2020, the Court concluded from the evidence the following: [27] The adolescent’s stubborn refusal or inability to change his behaviour and to participate in the group home programming preclude his return to the family environment; his recurrent and intense lack of impulse control continues to be an issue for him there. [28] The parents are not in bad faith, but they are unable to provide the consistency, firmness and warmth required to meet this adolescent’s special needs for supervision. (…) [35] The Court has considered the adolescent’s profile, including his age and his diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder, and concluded that he requires a professional environment to control his impulsiveness and to continue to develop and achieve positive goals. (…) [39] The Court hopes that X will use his intelligence and judgment to understand that he alone can make the correct choices to achieve his goals, but that until he reaches the age of majority, the adults around him are responsible for providing him with the means to learn to control his impulsivity. [1] [ 3 ] On that same day, the Court declared that X’s security or development is still in danger and postponed the hearing until June 12 in order to hear from two social workers who allegedly mentioned to the parents that maintaining the adolescent in a group home was not in his best interest contrary to the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendation. [ 4 ] The Director still recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a reception center until his majority. [ 5 ] The parents, who are not represented by a lawyer, request that X integrate in a very short delay [Center A].

Alternatively, they propose that he be entrusted to them with a follow up by the social worker, Ms. [Social Worker 1].

[ 6 ] Represented by lawyer, X asks for his immediate return to his father’s home. [ 7 ] The undersigned is not satisfied that the evidence points toward an immediate return home. Information on the issue of cyber- dependency is still missing and X has yet to express a willingness to participate in the [Center A] program. [ 8 ] For these reasons and in the hope that X will commit to a plan to improve his situation, the Court has adjourned the hearing on the measures until September 10 th , 2020; meanwhile the adolescent remains in the Group Home.

CONTEXT [ 9 ] [Center A] is dedicated to accompanying intellectually disabled or autistic children and their families. Residential and rehabilitation services are offered on a voluntary basis. [ 10 ] After one meeting and one phone call with X, the worker from [Center A] identified computer use, time management and autonomy as the adolescent’s areas of difficulty. [ 11 ] The parents were also met and a virtual tour was offered to the family members. [ 12 ] Ms.

C, the worker from [Center A], testified that she did not offer an opinion to the parents regarding the type of facility best suited for X. [ 13 ] She testified that X would be eligible to integrate the resource once he expressed a willingness to do so and following a short period of preparation. [ 14 ] Contrary to the parent’s voice such willingness on X’s part was not expressed before or at the hearing. [ 15 ] Referred to the family by Youth services A, Ms. [Social Worker 1] met with family members from November 5 th until March 25 th , 2020, mostly with Adam and his father in order to help improve the relationship between them. [ 16 ] This witness clearly mentioned to the father that the group home would not offer an environment that would allow X to self- regulate on his journey toward adulthood because it does not offer the opportunity to experience respecting an age-appropriate parenting style; the structure of the group home does not provide such flexibility. [ 17 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] was not declared an expert witness considering that her field of expertise is related to individual and couples therapy, not adolescents with defiant disorder nor family dynamics.

Moreover the witness was not aware of the intensity of X’s behaviors and of the parent’s reactions to those behaviors during the previous months. Consequently, her opinion of the family situation has little if any probative value. [ 18 ] Partly because of the restrictions imposed by the pandemic but also because of X’s decision not to benefit from services offered, the situation has not improved enough to allow the adolescent to return home. [ 19 ] Hoping for a more flexible structure than the one in place at the group home, the mother recognized that the family dynamics do not yet suit X’s profile.

The father also concedes that the adolescent’s oppositional behaviour as well as his computer management are still important issues. ANALYSIS [ 20 ] Both parents are hoping for a sign from X that he is willing to come home; they are of the opinion that his integration at [Center A] would represent such a sign. [ 21 ] The parents’ enthusiasm for this resource is apparent; X’s is not. [ 22 ] With reason, they acknowledge that the adolescent must show signs of commitment to a plan that will better his situation.

Otherwise he will return home with the same intense opposition and behavioral issues that led to his placement in a reception center. Such a situation is not an option. [ 23 ] The Group Home has developed an individual intervention plan, distinct from the rest of the group, in order to facilitate X’s participation in the help offered.

Therapy will resume, he has accepted to exchange with the new social worker in the file, and his cyber dependency will be assessed, offering more tools for the family to deal with this issue. [ 24 ] The Court is not convinced on a balance of probabilities that it is necessary for X to be entrusted to a reception center until the age of majority; there is a sign of improvement in his openness to the intervention. [ 25 ] Furthermore, the impending assessment will allow the family to better understand the adolescent’s cyber dependency and consequently, improve the effectiveness of the intervention in relation to his computer management.

The main trigger of crisis situations within the family would then be contained. [ 26 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 27 ] MAINTAINS the adolescent in a reception center;

[ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that he remain at […] Group Home; [ 29 ] ORDERS that he benefit from a psychological follow-up; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from a follow-up with an educator; [ 31 ] ORDERS that X be assessed for a possible cyber-dependency, either at [ Center B ], at [ Center C ] or any other facility that would provide this service; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his parents be determined by agreement between the parties and if no agreement can be reached, ORDERS that the first two visits be conducted at home with supervision and thereafter visits shall be minimally five hours per week-end without supervision; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family; [ 34 ] CONTINUES the hearing on September 10, 2020, at 2:00 pm, room 1.04.

SIGNED IN Town A On July 20th, 2020 ______________________ MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. Mtre François Marchand Counsel for the DYP Mtre Alexandra Daigle Counsel for the child Hearing date: June 12, 2020 MN/if