2016 QCCQ 18038, 2016 QCCQ 18038

Protection de la jeunesse — 168994 2016 QCCQ 18038 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division File number : 115-41-000071-159 DATE: December 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENIS PARADIS, C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION , Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2001 Adolescent -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 application for protection is in respect of the young person, X, born on [...], 2001. The applicant suggests that his security and development are in danger within the meaning of

section 38 of The Youth Protection Act. The parents, Mr. B and Ms. A, are challenging the request, as is their son. [ 2 ] At the hearing, they are present and assisted by their respective lawyer. The psychosocial report prepared by Ms. [Social Worker 1] is filed at the beginning of the hearing, letter from the L'Escale Rehabilitation Center, an observation and evaluation report signed by Ms. [Social Worker 2], the results of drug testing for X and a medical report from Dr. Jean-François Noël. THE EVIDENCE [ 3 ] X is 15 years old. The youth prtotection is involved in X’s family since February 2015.

A serious behavioural problem was pointed. Mrs [Social Worker 1] wrote in her report : « The teenager had major difficulties listening to the rules at home, he hangs out with older people, drinks alcohol excessively, goes out late even if he wasn’t allowed to and puts himself into danger. [… ] X needed to respect authority and he needed a structure. The parents also needed support to offer a coherent structure for their son [1] . » [ 4 ] At the hearing, Mrs [Social Worker 1] repeats essentially the same thing. She adds that the parents doesn’t understand well the serious of the situation.

They put him into danger. They want to protect X but they don’t have the tools. [ 5 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1] give the examples of the accident with a four wheeler and another incident at Quebec city when the police found him with a stolen bike and the face in blood. [ 6 ] At the moment of those events, X was under influence of alcohol. In despite of this consumption problem, Mr B and Mrs A allow X to drink she adds.

He takes medication for his ADHD and concussion and mixed with alocohol or drug maybe bring him at a very high risk of psychosis. [ 7 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1] testifies that it is not easy at school for X but it is better than the last year. He has no behavioural problem at school. In cross examination, she recognizes that the parents have qualities. She confirms that X sees a drug therapist, Mrs Marie-André Cyr. He agrees to meet a psychologist but he’s on a waiting list. [ 8 ] For Mrs. [Social Worker 1], parents need a follow-up on how to put limits, to put an appropriate structure in place, because

according to her, they do not know what to do. [ 9 ] X's mother, Ms. A, testifies that things are going better. His son's medication was altered. It's hard to get up in the morning but he goes to bed earlier. [ 10 ] X no longer takes alcohol. He respects the rules. On special occasions, it allows him a drink. He helps and works at home. He fished with his father in 2016 and the family did a lot of activities together. [ 11 ] Ms. A believes her son has reflected.

She thanked the DYP for the help she had given but now felt that she no longer needed it. [ 12 ] In cross-examination, she asserts that X knows that he has an alcohol and drug problem and that if he repeats his past behavior, he will start from scratch. "If he wants to have our trust, we must have his," she said. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 13 ] For the applicant, the family needs time to consolidate the recent gains. The parents argue that their habits with X have changed, that they no longer act in the same way. Their coaching is adequate and they do not hesitate to ask for help if they feel the need. Ms.

A initially contacted the DPJ. [ 14 ] The

section 38

f) of the Youth protection Act provides that the « serious behavioural disturbance refers to a situation in wich a child behaves in such a way to repeatedly on seriously undermine the child’s or other physical or psychological integrity, and the child’s parents fail to take the nessecary steps to put end the situation or, if the child is 14 or over, the child objects to such steps. » [ 15 ] Also, the primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child an for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents.

Section 3 of the same Act prescribed that « the decisions made under this Act must be in the interest of the child and respect his rights ». In the other hand, every decision made under the Youth protection Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. [ 16 ]

Article 38 (

f) therefore requires two things. That the child presents serious and continuing behaviors that are detrimental to his physical or psychological integrity and that his parents do not take the necessary means to put an end to the situation. [ 17 ] Evidence shows that X is no longer in the same position and neither is his parents. The Tribunal is reassured by the testimony of Ms. A. Also, Ms. [Social Worker 1], who signed her report on October 12, 2016, wrote that : « However, we considered they learn from that last event. X is not allowed to go out since then.

That was our recommendation but also the parents decision. When that last event happened, X wasn’t under his parent’s responsibility. They say they now understand that X cannot handle only a couple beers and why 0 tolerance should apply [2] . » [ 18 ] Cause his accident and hard concussion, it is very dangerous for X to consume alcohol and drug. The Court believes that the family knows that now.

The next time that X will drink or taking drug, it will probably the last time, cause the permanent damages can be very serious. [ 19 ] His follow-up with the drug therapist and the psychologist, and the implication of the parents are enough to ensure the security and the development of X. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] REJECTS the application. __________________________________ DENIS PARADIS, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Sébastien Caron for the adolescent Me Jean Yanakis for the parents Date of hearing: November 24, 2016 Judgment filed on : December 8, 2016