2018 QCCQ 13854, 2018 QCCQ 13854

Protection de la jeunesse — 184255 2018 QCCQ 13854 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032212-177 DATE : May 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2001 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on May 2, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that an extension of the order rendered on August 9, 2017 is necessary. [ 3 ] On December 19, 2017, the Tribunal maintained the adolescent placed in a rehabilitation centre and ordered support measures on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] On January 23, 2018, the hearing was postponed. [ 5 ] Today the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to his grandmother’s care and that support measures be ordered until August 24, 2018. [ 6 ] The parents are absent at the hearing [ 7 ] The grandmother and the adolescent are in agreement with the proposed plan.

They hope that an integration of the adolescent to the parents’ care will be possible at the end of the summer. Question in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the adolescent’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] On August 9, 2017, the Tribunal rendered a short order as a reassessment of the situation was necessary following a few months of rehabilitation and school attendance. [ 10 ] At times, the adolescent has tested the limits of the rehabilitation centre. He has been rude, vulgar and has been showing attitude toward the staff.

He has not always respected the rules of the centre.

[ 11 ] The adolescent started to show signs of motivation towards school work. [ 12 ] During a visit at his grandmother’s, on November 1, 2017, the adolescent smoked marijuana. [ 13 ] On January 23, 2018, the Director asked that the case be postponed. The youth protection worker testified to the effect that the plan was for the child to be reintegrated to his grandmother’s care.

It was explained that a Homeward Bound educator would be available in the coming weeks to support the grandmother and the adolescent. [ 14 ] The father was opposed to the postponement and requested that the adolescent be reintegrated to his care. He mentioned that the mother shared his opinion. [ 15 ] The maternal grandmother and the adolescent were in agreement with the postponement and with the adolescent’s progressive reintegration to his grandmother. [ 16 ] The hearing was postponed to May 2, 2018.

The Tribunal ordered that the adolescent remain in a rehabilitation centre but a progressive reintegration to the grandmother’s care was authorized. [ 17 ] At the end of March 2018, the adolescent was reintegrated to his grandmother’s care. He has been doing well; complying with rules set by his grandmother, including chores sharing. [ 18 ] He is attending school on a regular basis. [ 19 ] The grandmother has been consistently involved in the adolescent’s life. She has always collaborated positively with the Director. At this point, she is able to provide a structured and benevolent environment for her grandson.

The Director’s intervention is still warranted in order to support the grandmother and the adolescent. [ 20 ] The parents have collaborated minimally with the youth protection worker. They had sporadic contacts with the adolescent. Their involvement, at this point, is too minimal to contemplate the adolescent’s reintegration to their care. No evidence has been presented that would support such an orientation. Consequently a longer court order is warranted.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the adolescent is still in danger; [ 23 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on August 9, 2017; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to the care of his maternal grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 25 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent engage in therapeutic services to address his personal issues and drug use; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent follow through with medical, academic and any other therapeutic service required; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE until the adolescent’s majority. [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on May 15, 2018 /cd Mtre Isabelle Loranger Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Jean-Hervé Thomas Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Marc Morin Counsel for the father Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the maternal grandmother/party Dates of hearing: January 23 and May 2, 2018