2016 QCCQ 17455, 2016 QCCQ 17455

Protection de la jeunesse — 168567 2016 QCCQ 17455 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000482-155 DATE: November 30, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2000 Adolescent -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on June 8, 2016, in respect of the adolescent. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and not represented. She admits the facts and agrees with the measures proposed by the DYP. She also consents to the filing of the report to value the testimony of its author. [ 3 ] The adolescent is present and duly represented.

His counsel expresses also his consent to the conclusions suggested by the DYP and the filing of the report to value the testimony of its author. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the father is not present even if duly served. However, a letter signed by him is deposed stating that he is an agreement for his son to remain in rehabilitation for the next six months. [ 5 ] The adolescent is sixteen year’s old.

He is diagnosed with an attention deficit disorder (ADHD), resulting in impulsiveness and over active behavior, for which he is medicated. [ 6 ] On June 8, 2016, he was entrusted in a foster family with a progressive reintegration in his maternal environment. [ 7 ] Since the last measures, on June 1 st , 2016, the adolescent reintegrated his mother’s house. During the summer, he was manageable but as soon the school began his conduct changed. He did not respect his curfew, skipping classes and demonstrated less interest in making changes.

He also stopped taking his medication for ADHD. [ 8 ] As mentioned in the psychosocial report, the adolescent is very impulsive and has no regard for his consequences. He is lacking motivation and has no objective for his future. He really needs discipline, structure and routine with clear boundaries and consistency. He requires attention regularly. He needs an adult role model in his life. [ 9 ] Basically, the adolescent has to acquire essential skills and gain better tools in order to have success in his own personal growth

and development. [ 10 ] The mother loves her son and really cares for him. They have a good bond, but he needs more than that. The mother really thinks that it is in her son’s best interest to remain at the center to give him more opportunities. [ 11 ] On her side, the mother will have to take a more authoritative role in her son’s life in order for him to be back with her and to stay hopefully and definitely. To achieve that goal, many services will be put in place to support her.

She will have to involve herself fully in her son‘s life and collaborate with the professional services. [ 12 ] The social worker testifies about the situation of the adolescent since her report was written on October 31, 2016. The adolescent shows the same behaviour then explained in it. He has constantly to be supervised by an adult. He has to be reminded several times of his boundaries. However, he functions well in structured environment.

Since he has been taking his medication, a little improvement was noticed, but still he needs to be more stabilized. [ 13 ] Concerning the father, their relationship is not consistent. The DYP tried to reach him several times, unsuccessfully. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the adolescent still needs a structure and a strict rule environment. The rehabilitation center is the best option to him, for the mo-ment. They will provide services required for his actual needs.

Furthermore, an oppor-tunity to grow and to learn tools to help him build a foundation of stability and balance. [ 15 ] The evidence reveals that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this adolescent. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension or order; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center designated by the DYP until May 30, 2017; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his mother be determined following an agreement between the parties; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent receive a psychological assessment and counseling if deemed necessary; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his mother benefit from an external educator to learn coping and communication skills; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues to actively participate with counseling and an external educator in the home for support in parenting, discipline and structure; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family until May 30, 2017; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the adolescent Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: November 30, 2016 Written judgment filed on December 15, 2016