2013 QCCQ 17001, 2013 QCCQ 17001

Protection de la jeunesse — 135605 2013 QCCQ 17001 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NO: 640-41-000453-016 DATE: September 27, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A PETITIONER AND X Born on […], 1999 YOUTH AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q .) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking the review of a Court order rendered on March 4, 2003 by judge Daniel Bédard who ordered the placement of X until he reaches the age of majority. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection now asks that Kenneth be placed in a reception centre for a period of one year due to behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The evidence reveals that X, who is only fourteen, consumes drugs and alcohol.

He admits having stolen money from his foster family. [ 4 ] He has trouble following rules and coming back to his foster family at night. He can remain away from his foster family for a few nights in a row. [ 5 ] He does not attend school regularly, this without any good excuse. [ 6 ] X has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. For the time being, it seems that he has no medication.

A new medical assessment should be done in regard to his condition. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that he needs a structured environment and to be constantly supervised. [ 8 ] This file was scheduled on the court docket for the first time last August, but due to lack of time, it was postponed to September. In the meantime, X was maintained in a foster family with clear rules for him to follow.

Unfortunately, even if he was clearly forewarned by the Court that if these rules were not followed the Court would have no other option than to order his placement in a reception centre, X was not able to abide by these rules or he did not take the Court's warning seriously. [ 9 ] New immediate protection measures were taken a few days before the present hearing and X was sent to a reception centre. From there, he ran away. The day of his appearance in court, he was nowhere to be found.

So, the Court issued a warrant allowing police forces to bring him to court. [ 10 ] The father is clearly worried about his son's situation. He asked the Court that his son receive specialised help in order to resolve his addiction problems with alcohol and drugs. He would like his son to attend A Centre as his older sister did before. [ 11 ] The father also informed the Court that even though his son has run away from the reception centre twice, he was never informed of these situations by the Director of Youth Protection.

When the Court asked the Social Worker why she did not inform the father, she responded that she has no obligation to do so since X is placed until the age of majority. When asked from whom she got such inaccurate information she responded: "From a doctor or a nurse". It is surprising that for legal advice a Social Worker addresses herself

to a doctor or a nurse. In the Court's mind, it makes no sense at all. [ 12 ] Furthermore, the Social Worker did not know that she had such an obligation under the Youth Protection Act . When the Court read

section 66 of the Youth Protection Act , it was clear that the Social Worker had never heard about this part of the legislation. In her mind, when a child is placed until he reaches the age of majority, the parents do not have to be informed if the child runs away. Since parental authority was not withdrawn form the father, since the last Court judgment ordered the Director of Youth Protection to provide help to the father, it is clear that the Director cannot put aside a father and pretend that he does not exist anymore.

The evidence also reveals that aid, counsel and assistance were not provided to the father despite the last Court decision. [ 13 ] The Director of Youth Protection has very large powers given to him by the Youth Protection Act . He also has strict responsibilities. The Director of Youth Protection has to take the necessary steps to have these responsibilities respected by the people he authorizes to act on his behalf under sections 32 and 33 of the said law.

Here, it seems that one member of his staff does not know or understand these powers and correlative responsibilities. [ 14 ] The Director's representative asks for a twelve-month placement in a reception centre. The evidence tendered demonstrates that this measure is clearly appropriate in order to improve X situation. [ 15 ] In the meantime, and until X reaches the age of majority, the Director of Youth Protection will have to inform the father of X evolution.

A social follow-up has to be provided to the father as well as to his son. [ 16 ] For these motives, the Court: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] REVIEWS the last Court order; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 20 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of twelve months with a gradual reintegration in a foster family after six months if the situation of X allows to do so; [ 21 ] ORDERS X to attend school on a regular basis; [ 22 ] PROHIBITS X from consuming any alcoholic beverages, drugs or any other intoxicating substances; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access rights with the father be favoured and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities; [ 24 ] ORDERS that all steps be taken by the Director of Youth Protection and X in order for the youth to attend a treatment centre; [ 25 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions contained in the previous judgment, in particular that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and his father until X reaches the age of majority; [ 26 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS X situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Lawyer for the petitioner M e Myriame Gaudreault Lawyer for the youth M e Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 12, 2013