2017 QCCQ 20126, 2017 QCCQ 20126

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710333 2017 QCCQ 20126 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000211-179 DATE: June 21, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2002 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of 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 to declare that the security and development of the teenager are endangered pursuant to paragraph f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] Mtre. Camille Champeval represents the applicant, Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis represents the youth and Mtre. Michel Grenier acts on behalf of the mother. The father is present, but not represented by counsel. [ 3 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the Director of Youth Protection informed the Court that the principal measure they sought had been modified.

The Director now recommends that X be entrusted to his father. [ 4 ] All the parties agree with the measures recommended. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals, by the admissions of the parties, that the youth exhibits aggressive behaviours toward his siblings and breaks objects when he is upset. [ 6 ] He has difficulties respecting the authority of his parents. [ 7 ] He does not attend school regularly. [ 8 ] On March 29, 2017, the youth was admitted at the reception centre. [ 9 ] The mother is overwhelmed with X’s behaviour. [ 10 ] At the time of the filing of the motion, the teenager’s behaviour required placement in a reception centre, but considering the improvements made, this is no longer the case. [ 11 ] The youth was exposed to violence. [ 12 ] For a certain period of time, the Social Worker was unable to reach the father and had no valid address for him. [ 13 ] During his stay at the reception centre, X made real efforts to change his behaviour.

He improved his situation and it is why the Director now seeks that the father regain custody of the teenager. [ 14 ] The father is willing to collaborate with the Youth Protection Worker and to receive help.

[ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are endangered pursuant to paragraph f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to his father; [ 19 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of twelve months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the Social Worker be informed promptly of any absence of X from school; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother engage in and complete a substance abuse treatment program; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents engage in counselling to ensure that they can co-parent the youth effectively; [ 24 ] ORDERS the parents to refrain from any form of physical discipline; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that X is not exposed to any violence; [ 26 ] ORDERS the parents not to be under the influence of intoxicating substances when in presence of the youth; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the child in the presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the X to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the children Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Mr. B Father Date of hearing: May 23, 2017