2011 QCCQ 2422, 2011 QCCQ 2422

Protection de la jeunesse — 11155 2011 QCCQ 2422 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-023994-106 Date: January 6, 2011 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born […] 1998 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother JD2620 -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 6, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a twelve year-old child, as a result of his serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 3.1 as relevant background information the Director of Youth Protection received a report in July and October 2009 stating that the child was sexually abused by an older woman in the community and that he was exhibiting behavioural difficulties that his parents could no longer manage and the child was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre pursuant to a provisional measures agreement; 3.2 on December 3rd, 2009, the child, as a result of his behaviour problems was the subject of a voluntary measures agreement with placement in a rehabilitation centre with reintegration to the mother's care, all for a period of one (1) year, the whole as Exhibit D-1; 3.3 the child has remained in rehabilitation centre placement as per the voluntary measures agreement; 3.4 the child has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and exhibits an intellectual handicap; 3.5 the child is prescribed medication and through the course of his placement it was determined that his parents had not been administering the medication on a regular basis; 3.6 the child's behaviour remains impulsive and aggressive although he has made gains over the past year;

3.7 the child continues to experience academic difficulties and behavioural problems at school; 3.8 the parents have been inconsistent with visits with the child; 3.9 there has been ongoing difficulty for the delegate to reach the parents to discuss various issues concerning the child, including signing of consents for the child's situation; 3.10 the child requires close supervision in placement as he remains impulsive and his behaviour can quickly escalate; 3.11 in late Summer 2010, the child ran away from his mother's home on two (2) occasions; 3.12 the mother continues to struggle in managing the child's behaviour so that visits have decreased to one overnight every weekend; 3.13 in September 2010, the child was involved in an incident with another child related to mutual touching for which the child is receiving appropriate services; 3.14 the father maintains visits with the child; 3.15 the parents' ability to be accountable, available and capable to meet the needs for the child remains limited so that a reintegration home cannot be envisioned at this time (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with a gradual reintegration to his mother's care after six months if possible, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and consented to the proposed measures.

She added that she had three heart attacks last year, making it difficult for her to attend some of the visits with the child. [ 6 ] The father, who also proceeded without legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The child, assisted by Me Sepinwall, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The Director filed exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Agreement on Voluntary Measures dated December 3, 2010; D-2: Child's birth certificate; D-3: Court Report by [social worker 1] dated December 16, 2010. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the child's behaviour continues to be very challenging and his parents are unable to provide him with the structure he requires. [ 10 ] The extent of his behavioural problems is described as follows: X has been diagnosed with ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. X challenges authorities and he has a tendency to be oppositional. Currently, X resides in [Center A] where he is taught ART skills and techniques to deal with his aggression. X continues to display inappropriate behaviour and he is often aggressive towards the staff and the other residents at the centre.

X can be very defiant and has a hard time managing in his environment. Even though X's behaviour has been somewhat improved, he still cannot control his impulses and his aggression.

As a result, the personnel at [Center A] have to often restrain him and place him in the isolation room. [1] [ 11 ] He is receiving a number of services including Creative Art Therapy which appears to be particularly helpful given the child's cognitive difficulties. [ 12 ] The mother is reportedly working very hard and is proud of her son's progress. [ 13 ] However, further improvements need to be made before the child can return to his mother's care: The plan is to maintain X in a rehabilitation centre for another year, until both his mother and his father are able to establish a more structured environment for him at home.

In addition, X needs to learn how to control his impulsive behaviours before he can reintegrate into the care of his mother. Both parents need to become more consistent and clear about the rules and the boundaries they set for X and they should also spend more quality time with him while he is at home. Further DYP involvement is deemed necessary because X's security and development is still compromised as X is still exhibiting serious behavioural disturbances and neither of his parents are able to handle him. In addition, both Mrs. A and Mr.

B do not feel that the issues have been resolved and they do agree with the fact that X needs further placement. [2] [ 14 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. [ 15 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion;

[ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 38 (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with a gradual reintegration to his mother's care after six months, if the situation allows; [ 19 ] ORDERS respite care in a rehabilitation centre, upon availability, with the frequency to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection in consultation with the parents; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that both parent are satisfied with the contacts as they occur; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection, should the parents not be reached within a reasonable delay, to sign all consents regarding the child; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents each undergo a parental capacity assessment and follow the recommendations made; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of their undertaking to do so; [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle LORANGER / AI0942 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard SEPINWALL / AS1269 Attorney for the child Hearing date: January 6, 2011 . TD/md