2016 QCCQ 12617, 2016 QCCQ 12617

Protection de la jeunesse — 165554 2016 QCCQ 12617 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000483-153 DATE: August 3, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2002 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 January 21, 2016, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] Concerning the conclusions proposed, at the hearing the DYP proceeds to amendments in the application instead of entrusting the child to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months it would rather be for a period of six months. [ 3 ] At court, the parents are present but unrepresented.

They both admit the facts, and they agree with the amended measures proposed by the DYP. Moreover, they consent to the filing of the report to value the testimony of her author. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by a lawyer. Even if, he denies or ignores a few allegations, he generally admits the facts in the application. He agrees with the amended conclusion and also consents to the filing of the report to value the testimony of her author. [ 5 ] Since the last Court order, the situation of the child has worsened.

He does not respect the adult decisions and challenges with negations, especially with the mother. They have daily confrontations about the difference of treatment and rules between her household and that of the father's. [ 6 ] The child’s behaviour is not improving. The child does not act the same while at his father’s or at his mother’s. For example, at his father's, he takes is medication but not while at his mother’s. The child demonstrates more maturity when in the father’s care. [ 7 ] The mother calls regularly the emergency line and relies on Social Services intervention almost every week.

Usually, is about the child being too aggressive, argumentative and disrespectful or to have confrontational behaviours towards her. [ 8 ] The father made significant progress in his parenting skills. He can provide structure and consistency at home. The child’s behaviour doesn’t seem a problem with him. They are both pursuing there meeting with an external educator. The child collaborates well with the services. [ 9 ] In school, the child is showing a lack of interest is having difficulty concentrating. [ 10 ] It seems that since the last order, the parents established communication.

They are now on the same page in regards to their son. This situation does not please the child. The parents are collaborating with each other instead of arguing or fighting. As mentioned in the psychosocial report, “the objective for them is to become equipped with better communication skills and techniques to diffuse potential outburst.”

[ 11 ] The child still requires structure and consistency and both parents can provide that. They will have to continue their involvement and follow-ups. Furthermore, they have to continue to improve and work through their communication problems, so they become even more appropriate for the child’s well-being. [ 12 ] The evidence is completed by the testimony of the social worker. She expresses her opinion in regards to the action that the child will have to improve in his behaviour in order to be back with the parents.

Such as learning to respect them, to follow the rules at home and cease the consumption of drugs. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the petition is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents take place upon agreement between the parties; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues and develop better parenting skills; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in meeting with the DYP on a regular basis; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in external education services; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child and his family actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until February 28, 2017; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mme A the mother Mr. B the father Written judgment filed on August 16, 2016