2017 QCCQ 16011, 2017 QCCQ 16011

Protection de la jeunesse — 176666 2017 QCCQ 16011 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032212-177 DATE : August 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2001 adolescent and A B parents C party ______________________________________________________________________ CORRECTED JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 August 9, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the adolescent exhibits serious behavioural disturbances (drug and alcohol use, not respecting his grandmother’s authority).

The Director also alleges that the adolescent is of school age and does not attend school on a regular basis. [ 3 ] On February 17, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the adolescent to his maternal grandmother and ordered some support measures, including an obligation for the adolescent to attend school. [ 4 ] On April 11, 2017, the adolescent decided not to present himself in Court for the hearing under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . Consequently, the Director requested a postponement. [ 5 ] During that hearing, the maternal grandmother requested to be recognized as a party to the proceedings. Every party present agreed for the Tribunal to grant this status to the grandmother, who was in fact the adolescent’s primary caregiver for at least two years. The Tribunal granted the status of party to the maternal grandmother. [ 6 ] The hearing was postponed to July 7, 2017 and the status quo was maintained.

The Tribunal ordered that a sub poena be sent to the adolescent. [ 7 ] On April 21, 2017, as the adolescent was not respecting his grandmother’s rules and was still not attending school, the Director presented an application for provisional compulsory foster care and requested that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre. The adolescent refused to attend the Court hearing.

A warrant was issued under sections 35.2 and 35.3 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 8 ] On that date, the adolescent ran away and his whereabouts remained unknown until July 7, 2017. [ 9 ] On July 7, 2017, as the adolescent was not present in Court, the case was postponed sine die. [ 10 ] On the same date, the youth protection worker received a message from the father stating that he was in the Court house that morning with the adolescent. The father confirmed that the adolescent had been living with him and the mother since April.

[ 11 ] On July 31 2017, the Director presented an application for provisional measures, asking the Court to entrust the adolescent to his parents’ care. The parents and the adolescent were absent, consequently, the hearing was postponed to August 2, 2017. [ 12 ] On August 2, 2017, only the youth protection worker and the grandmother presented themselves at the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded and ordered that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre.

A warrant was issued in order for peace officers to search and bring the adolescent to the Director. [ 13 ] Since then, the parties were notified of the Court decision. The father mentioned to the youth protection worker that he would try to keep the adolescent away from officials until August 9, 2017, when they plan to come to Court. The police has gone to the house on three occasions, but to no avail.

The father reported that the adolescent had gone to a friend’s house refusing to provide his location. [ 14 ] Today, the Director is recommending that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre and that support measures be ordered until June 30, 2018. [ 15 ] The mother is absent at the present hearing. [ 16 ] The father is asking that the adolescent be entrusted to his care. He agrees to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 17 ] The maternal grandmother is supporting the father’s request. Subsidiarily, she proposes herself as an alternative resource.

Finally, in the event the Tribunal considers placement, she suggests that a shorter order be rendered. [ 18 ] The adolescent wishes to be entrusted to his parents’ care. Question in litigation [ 19 ] Is it possible to maintain the adolescent in his parents’ care? If not, can he be entrusted to his grandmother? If not, what should be the placement’s duration? Context and Analysis [ 20 ] The adolescent’s maternal grandmother, Ms. C, has been the primary caregiver for the adolescent for, at least, the past two years.

The parents and the adolescent’s younger siblings are living in Sorel. [ 21 ] In 2011, the adolescent was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). In 2016, it was discovered that the adolescent had learning difficulties and some anxiety traits. [ 22 ] While living with his grandmother, the adolescent was frequently absent from school. When he was not in school, he stayed home and played videogames in his room. The adolescent’s grandmother has stopped trying to get him up in the morning.

The grandmother reported to the youth protection worker that, in the past, when she tried to impose a consequence, the adolescent would react aggressively and punch the freezer or other objects. [ 23 ] While residing with his grandmother, the adolescent consumed marijuana minimally once or twice per week. He did not consider his drug use as problematic and had no intention to quit.

The adolescent now reports that he has stopped taking drugs since April 2017 and is now willing to work on his issues. [ 24 ] On February 17, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the adolescent to his maternal grandmother and ordered some support measures, including an obligation for the adolescent to attend school. [ 25 ] Since that date, the adolescent has continued to be absent from school on a regular basis. [ 26 ] On March 23, 2017, teachers report that: X has no interest in anything other than drugs, and this is all he talks about at school.

He refuses to participate in any activity or subject which involves social interaction. X is unmotivated in school and rarely completes his school work. His absenteeism is greatly impacting his ability to complete his work [1] . [ 27 ] On April 11 and 21, the adolescent refused to come to Court. He ran away on April 21 and went to live with his parents, unbeknownst to the youth protection worker. [ 28 ] At the time, the adolescent and his grandmother were unable to identify concrete solutions to ensure his consistent school attendance.

The grandmother was unable to provide the necessary structure and appropriate consequences for the adolescent. [ 29 ] When deciding on appropriate measures, the Tribunal should be guided by the general principles of the Youth Protection Act which states the following at

section 4 : Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible (…).

[ 30 ] Is it possible to maintain the adolescent in his parents’ care? [ 31 ] The father and the grandmother present that the adolescent should remain in Sorel. They argue that it is a quieter environment and the adolescent does not have many friends to get in trouble with. It should be possible for him to attend Heritage School with his sister and cousin. The father plans to register the adolescent in this school during the coming week. The father mentions that, since April 2017, his son has stopped consuming marijuana.

The youth protection worker reports that the adolescent does appear physically better than before. The father reports that the adolescent is responding positively to his structure. He listens to the rules; he spends time with his sisters and play soccer or football. [ 32 ] The parents have not collaborated with the Director. Until April 2017, except for one telephone call, the youth protection worker was unable to reach the parents. [ 33 ] The parents have refused or neglected to come to several meetings with the Director and have taken the same attitude towards Court hearings.

The Director has concerns with the father’s ability to follow through. [ 34 ] From April until July 7, 2017, despite a warrant being issued to search for the adolescent, the parents received their son home without informing the youth protection worker. The maternal grandmother, who was legally responsible for the adolescent, was also not notified. The father mentioned that he did not report his son being in Sorel as he knew that the adolescent would be locked up and that he disagreed with this decision. When they received the adolescent in April, the parents did not register the adolescent in school.

Following the August 2, 2017 decision, the father refused to respect the Tribunal’s decision as he believed it was not in the adolescent’s best interest. [ 35 ] Considering the parents’ lack of collaboration and transparency with the Director and their disrespect of the Court’s authority, the Tribunal cannot trust them, at this point, with the responsibility of caring for the adolescent. [ 36 ] Should the adolescent be entrusted to his grandmother’s care? [ 37 ] The maternal grandmother has been the adolescent’s primary caregiver for at least the past two years.

She is significant and important to him. [ 38 ] The grandmother reports that, if the adolescent has stopped consuming marijuana since April 2017, it should be easier to have him respect her house rules and attend school regularly. [ 39 ] The grandmother has always collaborated with the youth protection worker. Her motivation is not in question, but her capacity is. While the adolescent was in her care, she tried to set boundaries and clear rules, but the adolescent simply ignored her authority.

During his testimony, the father reported that he thought the adolescent would continue to misbehave in the grandmother’s environment. At this time, the grandmother is not a realistic option for the adolescent. [ 40 ] What should be the placement’s duration? [ 41 ] All other options having been considered, placement in a rehabilitation centre is warranted. [ 42 ] The Director presents that the adolescent should remain in placement until the end of his school year. He has missed a lot of school and is struggling academically.

The Director argues that placement is necessary for the adolescent to complete his school year and that he needs to address many issues before reintegrating to his family. [ 43 ] With such a long period of placement, the Tribunal considers that there is a high risk for the adolescent to disengage. His motivation to attend school is already fragile. A shorter Court order is more appropriate in the circumstances and will permit a reassessment of the situation following a few months of rehabilitation and school attendance.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 44 ] GRANTS the amended application; [ 45 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the adolescent is in danger ( sections 38

f) and 38.1

b) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 46 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre; [ 47 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent engage in therapeutic services to address his personal issues and drug abuse; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the adolescent, his parents and his maternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent follow through with medical, academic and any other therapeutic services required; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 51 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his parents; [ 52 ] THE WHOLE , until December 20, 2017; [ 53 ] CANCELS the hearing date of October 3, 2017.

[ 54 ] 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. Corrected and signed on September 20, 2017 /cd Mtre Heidi Lechter Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christophe Lafontant Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the grandmother/party Date of hearing: August 9, 2017