2018 QCCQ 11498, 2018 QCCQ 11498

Protection de la jeunesse — 181341 2018 QCCQ 11498 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000534-179 DATE: January 31, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2007 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 March 8, 2017, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] The DYP amends their recommendations to entrust the child to the mother instead of a rehabilitation center. [ 3 ] At the hearing, all the parties are present and duly represented except for the father who wishes to proceed without counsel.

At first, the father denies all the facts of the application and wishes for the child to be entrusted to him and the mother, in order to share his custody. After a short recess to receive the documentation, his position changes, and he agrees with the amended recommendations of the DYP. [ 4 ] Concerning the mother regarding the application, she agrees with a few allegations as well as denies or denies as written others. However, she agrees with the amended recommendations of the DYP. No evidence was presented on her part. [ 5 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child, after being acquainted with the evidence and the parents’ position, he expresses his consent to the amended measures proposed by the DYP. [ 6 ] All the parties agreed to the filing of the reports to value as testimony of their author. [ 7 ] Since the Court order rendered on March 8, 2017, some events took place requiring its revision of it. On November 7, 2017, the DYP was informed that the child has serious behavioral problems. [ 8 ] The problems arise not only at school but at the house as well. The child refuses to attend school and demonstrates an extreme defiant behavior.

He does not respect any rules or authority, and this both at home and at school. He is rude, disrespectful, aggressive, destructive and confrontational. [ 9 ] More worrisome is that he places himself in risky situations and frequently uses verbal and physical violence against his peers or objects. He ran away more than once but usually ends up at his father’s or with family but was also found once walking in the streets of Town A.

Basically, he is out of control, and it only gets worse. [ 10 ] Regarding professional services, the child did not attend half of his scheduled appointments with the educator in order to work

on his social skills. He does not enjoy going to those meetings and avoids them often. [ 11 ] It was also observed that the child did not received any consequence from his parents when not attending school. Even, when suspended from school no action was taken by them particularly by the mother who had his care. [ 12 ] On November 7, 2017, an immediate protective measure was ordered entrusting the child to a rehabilitation center for a period of 30 days.

The measure was extended until the present hearing. [ 13 ] Although he is placed in a rehabilitation center, he is still acting out and continues on his negative path. He refuses to listen, to follow the instructions and to obey the rules. Again, he manages to run away from the facility on more than one occasion. [ 14 ] The mother started at the beginning of October 2017 a follow up with the educator to work on her parental skills, but she did not implicate herself in that process and cancelled most of the appointments for various reasons.

During the only meeting she attended with this professional, she admitted that her son, gave her a hard time, and ran away from school and the house. [ 15 ] Concerning the other follow-ups the mother did not go through with them. She had only one meeting with a professional of A family services providing home support. She did not attend any appointment with Families First, in order to work in the family home. [ 16 ] Regarding the psychologist’s assessment of the child, it was hard to get it done, since the mother could not respect the scheduled appointment.

The assessment was completed due to the personnel of the rehabilitation center who made sure he attended. [ 17 ] The mother was informed of the date of her son’s revision, but she did not show up, only the father was present.

Since then, the DYP delegate tries to contact the mother for inform her of the orientation of the DYP but she never returns his calls nor answers when he presented himself at her house. [ 18 ] In fact, the mother did not implicate herself in any follow-up nor did she participate in every service put in place in order to help her since the last judgment. [ 19 ] The mother was also rude towards the DYP delegate on one occasion at least. Moreover, the [Community A] police department had to intervene sixteen times with the mother since May 2017. [ 20 ] The father testifies at the hearing.

He indicates that he wishes to have the shared custody of his son. However, he understands that for the time being, the child has to be stable in an environment. Both of them have to work on their issues. During his testimony, the father files documents confirming that he has been seeking help from Family services. He also mentions that he used to meet with a psychologist, but she moved to another city. Since then, he has been trying to find another one.

He wishes to take the necessary steps in order for his son to come live with him, hopefully, in a nearby future. [ 21 ] The parents have a dysfunctional relationship. They have been separate for a few months, and the communication between them is no longer healthy. [ 22 ] The DYP delegate, mister [social worker 1] has recently been involved in this case, and he is well aware of the family’s situation.

He reassessed the case and considered all the new facts that have occurred since December 2017. [ 23 ] In his opinion, the measure originally requested by the DYP is no longer needed mainly because of the child’s age, and the improvement observed. The child is more capable to manage his emotions. In the past when something happened he uses to react and had extreme childlike tantrums, but lately he remains calmer during those moments. [ 24 ] At his age, he should be elsewhere than in a rehabilitation center. There is less impact to entrust the child back to his mother than returning him to a center.

Of course, there is still a risk because of the fragility of the situation, but, it could be managed with all the services put in place and all the professionals surrounding this family. [ 25 ] Since the Christmas holidays, an important change was noticed in the child’s behavior, showing that it is possible to work with him. Furthermore, professional services were put in place and the mother implicates herself. She mentions her wish to pursue and to collaborate from now on. The visitations at the maternal home are going well, and no problem was reported for that matter.

The family’s situation seems to have evolved positively in the past month and a half. [ 26 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the court was not too incline to follow the amended recommendations suggested by the DYP. Nevertheless, after considering the very convincing testimony of Mr. [social worker 1], the Court could not come to another conclusion than the one presented by the DYP. The explanation given to the motives behind the change in the orientation is mostly based on the recent improvement observed regarding the child and the mother.

The Court finds it a suitable plan for the child and in his best interest. [ 27 ] Despite everything, the DYP will have to remain watchful to ensure that the situation does not deteriorate because it is still fragile at this point. The mother has to collaborate with the DYP and with all the services, but also be consistent with them. [ 28 ] The father should be more included in the child’s life. He has also taken some steps on his own to address his problems. [ 29 ] The changes occurring in this family are belated and recent, we still have to keep our eyes open.

There is not much room for mistakes considering the child’s age. [ 30 ] The child needs structure, stability, consistency and discipline. The mother’s environment could provide that after the recent steps taken by her and her son. However, there is still a lot of work ahead, and everyone must participate in all the measures ordered. [ 31 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger, under the circumstances. Considering the admissions and the consent of the parties, the application is well founded.

The suggested amended measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 34 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on March 8, 2017; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother, A, until September 30, 2018; [ 36 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and his father are determined following agreement between the parties; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in educational and psychological evaluations; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a parental and psychological evaluation; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help them deal with their personal issues; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in an anger management therapy; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from an external educator for support with behaviour, discipline, structure and routine as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 42 ] FORBIDS the parents to talk negatively about the other in the presence of the child; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in the follow-up with an Addiction Counselor; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in anger management; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until September 30, 2018; [ 48 ] 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 order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing January 31, 2018 Written judgment filed on February 9, 2018