2012 QCCQ 17503, 2012 QCCQ 17503

Protection de la jeunesse — 126770 2012 QCCQ 17503 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 635-41-000427-119 DATE: July 17, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD: X Born on […], 1996 [INTERVENANTE 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A(Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in Town A(Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in Town A(Quebec), district A; Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) submits to the Court a motion for revision of a decision rendered on February 21, 2012, by Justice Renée Lemoine, in which she maintained the child with his family for a period of six months upon a draft agreement signed by the parties. [ 2 ] Today, the DYP recommends that the child be entrusted to a reception center for a period of six months, with a total follow-up of 12 months, in order for the child to work on his anger and alcohol issues, and for the parents to work on their parental skills. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the father is present and agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] As for X, he would like to go back home with his parents.

He says he talked with his mother and she would like to have him back. [ 5 ] The social worker tried to meet the mother on Sunday at the child’s request, but the mother refused to come to see him. [ 6 ] The mother is not in Court today. Update of the situation since February 21, 2012 [ 7 ] When Justice Lemoine rendered her decision last February, X was just out of a five-month-stay in a reception center where he had improved a lot. He had learned to think before acting out and was ready to come back home. [ 8 ] When he came back home, X had a good start.

He was going to school, doing his chores and was motivated to find a part time job. [ 9 ] However, after a few weeks, he had already quit school. He became violent with his parents and siblings. He gradually went

back to his bad habits. [ 10 ] The father explains that when he is at work, his wife is alone with X and X tends to take advantage of his mother. He starts to run the house and abuses others. He does not respect curfews, hangs out with people that his father does not like, abuses of drugs and alcohol, and even steels from the community. [ 11 ] The situation has become out of control. [ 12 ] As for the parents’ collaboration with the social worker, the parents came to the meetings three times out of ten. The first time, they said things were fine.

The two other times, the parents came to say that they were overwhelmed with their son's behaviour and wanted him back in the reception center. [ 13 ] In June 2012, the father wanted to press charges against X because he had broken things around the house. [ 14 ] Shortly after, the father wanted to kick X out of the house to protect the other members of the family who had become anxious anytime X was around. [ 15 ] Today, the father testifies that his son needs help before coming back home.

Analysis and applicable measures [ 16 ] X needs to understand that he has to follow the rules and respect his parents’ authority before anything else. [ 17 ] Today, only the reception center can teach him this. His parents cannot succeed in doing so, though they have tried. [ 18 ] The Court knows that X is able to make progress because he showed his capacity to change in the past. [ 19 ] But this time, X must make changes that will last when he will go back home.

X must respect his mother and siblings as much as he respects his father. [ 20 ] When X will go back home, it will be important for the parents to report to the social worker on how the situation evolves on a regular basis. This will allow the social worker to give them advice before the situation becomes out of hands. [ 21 ] Meanwhile, to address the child’s needs, the Court believes that the recommendations made by the DYP are in the best interest of X.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the petition; REVISES the decision rendered on February 21, 2012 by Justice Renée Lemoine; DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still compromised; ORDERS that X be entrusted to a reception center for a period of six (6) months , with a progressive reintegration with this parents as soon as the situation allows it; ORDERS that the parents and the child play an active role in the measures to put an end the situation; ORDERS that X and his parents actively collaborate with the social worker; ORDERS that X work on his anger management problem and on his alcohol and drug issues; ORDERS that the parents work on their parental skills; ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his family for a period of 12 months; ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall see that the measures be carried out; ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ Lise Gagnon, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Attorney for the DYP M e Myriame Gaudreault Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 17, 2012