2013 QCCQ 10525, 2013 QCCQ 10525

Protection de la jeunesse — 133382 2013 QCCQ 10525 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE […] DISTRICT [...] “Youth Division” No: 640-41-001589-131 DATE: August 1, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A, working in A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in City A, province of Québec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in City A, province of Québec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in City A, province of Québec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion under Sections 38 and 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born […] , 1997. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the youth was present and represented. The mother was present but was not represented by a lawyer. As for the father, he was not present. The father is not involved in the life of his son.

He did not come to the hearing even though he was offered a plane ticket. [ 3 ] The applicant is recommending to the Court that the youth be placed in a Reception Center for a period of six (6) months with the possibility of reintegration when the situation allows it and with other measures. The youth agrees with the recommendation. So does the mother. [ 4 ] In September 2009, the youth was followed by Youth Protection in Batshaw B for conjugal violence between his mother and her partner in B.

The mother was referred to counselling of conjugal violence and was advised to address her child’s speech delay. [ 5 ] In April 2010, the mother was again involved in a fight while intoxicated with friends in her apartment. She was unconscious and could not recall how she sustained injuries in her face, which led her to be taken to the hospital. Immediate protective measures were applied to protect the youth. Later, under

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , the Honorable Judge Michèle Lefebvre, J.C.Q. ordered that the youth be entrusted to his mother under the specific condition that she resides with her parents in City A. [ 6 ] This present motion concerns the fact that, on April 26, 2013, the mother of the youth walked into the department of Youth Protection and complained about her son’s suicidal ideations, aggressive behaviour, drug addictive behaviour and stealing behaviour. [ 7 ] The grandfather confirmed that the youth punches the walls in the house and even destroyed the outside door frame because he was annoyed.

The grandfather states that the youth also owns a gun which he uses to threat the family that he is going to use it to commit suicide; the gun was taken by the police of A. The grandfather also mentions that the youth does not respect the curfew and comes back late at night with red eyes. He sometimes leaves the house when everybody is sleeping. [ 8 ] On April 26, 2013, the youth was placed under immediate protective measures in A. The foster family called on April 29, 2013 and complained that they were missing two alcohol drinks.

The youth told them that, when he would get his check from the [A company], he would pay for what he stole.

[ 9 ] In school, the youth is known to be smart and intelligent. He works at the [A company] and does not attend school regularly but does his school work when handed to him. He does it fast and, most of the time, correctly. [ 10 ] The parents are separated and the mother is the main caregiver of the youth. The father is not involved in the life of his son. The mother and the youth admit that the father displays alcohol related problems. [ 11 ] In 2009, the youth was diagnosed with ADHD and refused to take his medication, stating that is was affecting him.

When asked why he always wants to commit suicide, he says that it is just to scare his family and that he is not really serious about it. [ 12 ] On May 26, 2013, the youth’s mother was going through suicidal ideations. The youth mentioned that he sometimes chokes himself to get black out and feel high. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence and admissions, that the mother and the youth agree with the recommendations of the applicant, the Court declares that the security or development of the youth is in danger and that he needs to be in a structured environment which, in this case, would be a Reception Center.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the motion; DECLARES that the security or the development of X is in danger; ORDERS that the youth be placed in a Reception Center for a period of six (6) months with the possibility or reintegration when the situation allows it; RECOMMENDS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection during this placement of six (6) months; RECOMMENDS that aid, counsel ad assistance be given to the family by a professional for a period of nine (9) months; ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection continues to monitor the situation of the family; ORDERS that the youth attends school; ORDERS that the youth be psychologically assessed; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the collaboration of the police in the execution of the present order. __________________________________ Marc E.

Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant M e Joannie Jacob Counsel for the child Date of hearing: June 18, 2013