2017 QCCQ 18660, 2017 QCCQ 18660

Protection de la jeunesse — 179002 2017 QCCQ 18660 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-027641-133 DATE : February 24, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2004 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to review and extend the order rendered on January 28, 2016, entrusting X to a rehabilitation center for seven months, followed by his reintegration to the father’s care, accompanied by a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 2 ] Although the father has demonstrated commitment to the intervention plan, unforeseen circumstances have led to his being overwhelmed by the extent of his responsibilities.

Essentially, he unexpectedly took charge of his two younger children without notice or preparation. The situation quickly became too much for him to handle. Impatient and impulsive, he began resorting to physical means of discipline that he deeply regrets.

With no concrete solutions to propose, the father concedes that he is no longer in a position to assume the child’s care. [ 3 ] The Director further submits that a return to the mother’s care is not feasible given her lack of implication with regards to her son as well as the social follow-up. [ 4 ] Consequently and considering the child’s needs, the Director is proposing that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with a social follow-up and other corrective measures for a year. [ 5 ] The parents admit the allegations in support of the motion and consent to the measures as proposed. [ 6 ] Through his lawyer, the child recognizes that his father was overwhelmed by the unforeseen circumstances and understands these difficulties.

His attorney adds that: - The child wishes to be entrusted to [group home A] rather than [group home B] although he understands that the Court has no jurisdiction on this matter; - He wants to go to his father’s home for visits and wishes to see his brothers; - He wants to see his mother; - He would like the opportunity to play organised basketball. The Evidence

[ 7 ] The evidence presented at the hearing establishes the following: [ 8 ] During the seven months of placement in a reception centre, the child gained maturity and progressed consistently. No incidents of a sexual nature were reported although he continued to struggle with anxiety and anger management, leading to some defiant and oppositional behaviour. [ 9 ] The father properly invested in the intervention plan during that period, taking on the responsibility of ensuring the child’s participation in art therapy, the Challenges program as well as the Family Ties program.

He followed through on the child’s medical needs as well. [ 10 ] As expected, the father moved to a different neighbourhood to ensure that the child would not be in proximity of his younger brother Daniel. [ 11 ] Academically, the child has performed well but continues to struggle with behavioural issues. [ 12 ] In June of 2016, the father unexpectedly took custody of his two younger children from a second marriage. In collaboration with the youth worker, a new safety plan was developed to ensure that the child had no opportunity to expose his younger half-brothers to sexual behaviours.

This plan was respected. [ 13 ] The child’s reintegration to his father’s home was completed in August 2016. The relationship between the child and his brothers quickly deteriorated into constant bickering, arguments and rude behaviour. The main source of conflict involved the younger children’s appropriation of X’s possessions. [ 14 ] In the hope of maintaining the peace, the father would decide in favour of the younger children, exacerbating X’s feelings of injustice. Bickering soon turned to screaming, crying and defiant behaviour.

It should be noted as well that the family was residing in a one-bedroom apartment and space was therefore limited [ 15 ] The following December, the child advised the social worker that the father had resorted to the repeated use of physical discipline as well as threats of returning X to the reception centre.

The context described by the child led to the conclusion that the father had become impatient, impulsive and lacking in self-control as a result of his inability to adequately manage the family dynamics. [ 16 ] It has also come to light that the father was less than forthcoming with the social worker on various subjects including his occasional failure to respect the safety plan by allowing the child to sleep at his mother’s home without authorization. [ 17 ] After initially denying these claims, the father has since acknowledged the unreasonable nature of his behaviour and concedes that he should have been transparent with the social worker from the start. [ 18 ] An order for the child’s provisional foster care was rendered on January 16, 2017.

This measure caused X extreme distress and lead to the expression of a suicidal intent. Since then, his situation has stabilised. [ 19 ] With respect to the mother, very little has changed. Her participation in the intervention plan is negligible and her contact with her son is sporadic. Having repeatedly failed to respect the conditions imposed for outings, contact is once again restricted to the centre. Analysis [ 20 ] The circumstances leading to the unfortunate collapse of the child’s reintegration to the father’s home serves to emphasise his need for stability, predictability and consistency.

This child’s needs are demanding and he requires constant care and attention in order to advance. [ 21 ] It should be added that through his lawyer, the child has made a number of requests deserving of consideration and for the most part, requiring his parents’ implication. [ 22 ] Clearly, the father was in good faith throughout his son’s progressive reintegration and demonstrated commitment to the intervention plan.

Nonetheless, his inability to adjust to the arrival of his two younger sons, coupled with his attempts to conceal the subsequent problems led to a complete breakdown and ultimately, the failure of the child’s reintegration. [ 23 ] Currently, the father concedes that he finds himself in an impossible situation.

Although he maintains the hope that X can eventually return home, he acknowledges that he will require assistance and services to provide an environment that will meet the entire family’s needs. [ 24 ] The mother’s failure to engage in any of the services proposed by the Director, her lack of participation in the social follow-up and her inconsistency of contact with the child, adds to his distress. Although she claims to be open to eventually receiving X at home, her actions demonstrate the contrary.

She continues to explain her shortcomings by the extent of her daily obligations and in doing so, fails to attribute any priority to her son X. [ 25 ] The Court encourages the mother to consider the impact of her behaviour on her son who unequivocally expresses the need to see her. Given the unfortunate situation that led to his return to a reception centre, he requires his mother’s support now more than ever. [ 26 ] The facts presented justify both a revision and an extension of the order previously rendered.

Consideration of the evidence, including the consent of the parties, leads to the conclusion that the child’s needs and interests are best served by the proposed measures. [ 27 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion;

[ 29 ] REVISES the order; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be placed in a reception centre; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the child and his parents be determined by the DYP; [ 33 ] ORDERS that no means of physical discipline be used on the child by either parents; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father engage in therapy to manage his anger in particular through the Family Ties program or individual/group therapy; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents adhere to the safety plan established by the DYP with relation to contact between the child and his siblings; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in therapy and take

part in the Family Ties program; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child continue to receive therapy for as long as deemed necessary; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. SIGNED IN CITY A On March 2 nd , 2017 KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Heidi Lechter Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 24, 2017 KO/ lf