2016 QCCQ 9993, 2016 QCCQ 9993

Protection de la jeunesse — 164099 2016 QCCQ 9993 JL4320 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] «Youth Division»

N° : 450-41-005731-162 DATE : APRIL 25 th , 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : HONOURABLE MONIQUE LAVALLÉE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD [1] : X, born on [...], 2004 and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Youth protection director of Centre jeunesse A, working at [...], Town A, district A, Applicant , and Father undeclared and A , domiciled at [...], Town A (Québec), [...], The mother . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) is asking the Court to declare that the security or the development of the child X aged eleven years old, is in danger for reasons of neglect by his mother under

section 38 b iii) for failing to take the necessary steps to provide the child with schooling. [ 2 ] On April 4 th 2015, provisional measures were ordered by the Court entrusting the child to his mother, ordering that the child attend school regularly and ordering that the mother actively and honestly cooperate with the DYP delegate namely that she meet with her on a regular basis and allow her to meet with the child’s stepfather. [ 3 ] Today the DYP is asking the Court to entrust the child to his mother, to order that he attend school regularly and to order a psychosocial follow-up and various other measures for a period of one year. [ 4 ] In support of his application, the DYP has filed various reports with the Court (exhibits D-1 to D-8) and briefly had the social

worker testify. [ 5 ] The mother is present at the hearing and is represented by an attorney. She consents to the filing of the various reports and is in agreement with the measures sought by the DYP. [ 6 ] The child is not present at the hearing but is represented by an attorney who consents to the filing of the various exhibits and to the measures requested by the DYP. The facts [ 7 ] X is the eldest of the mother’s two children. His father, who is not declared on his birth certificate, died in a car accident when X was one year old. [ 8 ] X lives with his mother and stepfather.

The couple has been together for nine years and they have a daughter Y who is four years old. [ 9 ] The DYP received a report concerning the child in November 2015. [ 10 ] The assessment of the report shows that the child’s school attendance has been problematic since the first grade and is getting worse. [ 11 ] Between August 31 st and December 10 th 2015, he missed nearly 30 % of his classes and most of his absences have been justified by his mother. [ 12 ] The mother claims her son’s absences are due to an anxiety problem. Certain mornings he has panic attacks and refuses to go to school.

She states she has no other choice than to keep him at home. [ 13 ] Sometimes he goes to the bus stop but hides from the bus driver when the bus arrives. He then comes home and claims he missed the bus. [ 14 ] The mother states that her son has been bullied at school for the past two years.

She mentioned the problem to the school principal and a follow up by the school psychoeducator was put into place in the fall. [ 15 ] The principal and the school staff however have never witnessed nor even suspected that X was being bullied at school. [ 16 ] The child’s numerous absences have had an important impact on his academic results. He is presently failing in most of his subjects and is lagging behind the other children despite the fact that he is a bright boy who is described as articulate and worldly. [ 17 ] The have also impacted his relationship with his peers.

X is a withdrawn child with poor self esteem. His social skills are lacking.

The fact that he is absent so often from school has hindered his social progress. [ 18 ] At the beginning of the present school year, the school informed the mother that X had made suicidal comments and recommended that she request services for her son at the CSSS. [ 19 ] The mother informed the school in October that she had followed through with their recommendation and also stated that she had spoken to her daughter’s doctor at the hospital in order to get a referral to the child psychiatry department or to a psychologist for her son. [ 20 ] The school stated that it is difficult to know what the truth is from the mother as she changes her version of events even within the same conversation. [ 21 ] The DYP delegate observed that the mother is not always truthfull about the information she gives nor forthcoming about her situation. [ 22 ] The mother also told the DYP delegate that X was on a waiting list for services from the CSSS which had also referred her to La Maison de la Famille.

She claimed however that La Maison de la Famille does not offer services in English. [ 23 ] When the social worker said she would enquire with the CSSS as to how long it would be before X received services, the mother then changed her story and said that she had thought her son was on a waiting list but that is was a misunderstanding and that he was not. [ 24 ] The social worker contacted La Maison de la Famille only to learn that they do offer services in English. [ 25 ] The mother refused to allow the delegate to meet with the child’s stepfather claiming he was busy with work even though the social worker offered to meet with him in the evening after working hours. [ 26 ] She stated however that X’s relationship with his stepfather is more strained because her spouse is stricter that she is. [ 27 ] The mother did not allow the delegate to speak to the child’s grandmother either. [ 28 ] Although the mother stated that she wanted help with her son she has cooperated poorly with the DYP and the school in order to correct the situation.

[ 29 ] She regularly does not return calls and avoids meeting with the social worker. [ 30 ] On April 4 th , the social worker had to request a provisional Court order in order to get the mother to cooperate with her and to get the child to attend school on a daily basis. [ 31 ] At the hearing, the mother’s attorney explained that her client now better understands the DYP’s intervention which she initially viewed as an attempt to portray her as a bad mother, rather than an attempt to help her son. [ 32 ] Following the hearing for the provisional measures, the social worker was able to meet with the child’s stepfather and was very reassured by their meeting. [ 33 ] The mother’s attitude has changed for the better.

She is now cooperative and open. She agrees to submit to a mental health assessment. [ 34 ] She has undertaken various steps to ensure that her son receives the services he requires. X is presently on the waiting list at the CSSS for a psychological follow up. She has contacted La Maison de la Famille and will find out the day after the hearing which services they can offer. [ 35 ] In the last month, the child’s teacher reports that he has attended school regularly.

Although he is still struggling to catch up to his classmates, he recently managed to pass a math test, seems happier and actually plays with friends now. [ 36 ] When the social worker met with the child recently he was smiling for the first time and his attitude was open whereas he had previously been quite defensive. [ 37 ] When the child’s attorney met with him a few days before the hearing, her client told her he was now very happy at school.

He stated he understands what is being taught much better since he attends regularly and spoke enthusiastically about his friends. [ 38 ] At the hearing, the mother stated she is very happy with the changes in the situation since the Director’s involvement. She believes the DYP’s intervention served as a wake up call for her son who now seems to understand that he has to go to school.

PROTECTIVE MEASURES [ 39 ] The mother obviously loves her son and cares about his well being. [ 40 ] The evidence shows however that the DYP’s continued intervention is necessary to support the mother in her educative practices and to ensure that the recent changes are maintained on the long term. [ 41 ] To this end, the Court invites the mother to continue to cooperate with the social worker and the various measures proposed to put an end to the present situation of endangerment. This can only serve X’ best interest.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT; GRANTS the present amended application; DECLARES that the security or the development of the child X is in danger under

section 38 b iii) of the Youth Protection Act ; ENTRUSTS the child to his mother; ORDERS that the mother cooperate actively and honestly with the Director of Youth Protection, more specifically -that she participate with the Director of Youth Protection in the social follow up and with the intervention plan; ORDERS that the child attend school on a regular basis and that his absences be justified for medical reasons; TAKES NOTICE of the mother’s consent to undergo a mental health assessment to obtain or rule out a diagnosis; ORDERS that the child receive all the health services that he requires namely a psychological follow up if deemed necessary by the professional; ORDERS that a person, working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family, the whole for a period of one year ; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre Jeunesse A to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Monique Lavallée, J.Q.C..

M e Marie-Michèle Boulanger For the D.Y.P. M e Marie-Pier Trépanier For the mother M e Geneviève Lafontaine For the child Date of hearing : April 25 th 2016