2012 QCCQ 15576, 2012 QCCQ 15576

Protection de la jeunesse — 123249 2012 QCCQ 15576 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000351-103 DATE: June 29, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in Town A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district B Youth -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review and extension of a decision rendered by Chevalier J. on October 25, 2011, concerning X, born[…] , 1999. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the adolescent and the mother are both present and represented by their respective lawyer.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] The security and the development of X was declared endangered on September 28, 2010, by Grimard J. Due to the mother's history of alcohol and drug abuse, she had entrusted her child to her grandfather in 2004. The evidence then revealed that the youth was barely attending school and when he did, he had behavioural problems that were a cause for concern.

Grimard J. entrusted the child to his great grandfather and ordered measures aimed at helping the latter develop caregiver abilities. [ 4 ] On May 3 and October 25, 2011, Chevalier J. extended those measures because the youth's behaviour had somewhat worsened and the great grandfather still needed help to instil structure in the youth's life. The youth was also in need of professional help for his anger management.

Considering the great grandfather's health problems, Chevalier J. ordered that the delegate of the Director of Youth Protection hold a family council with the extended family in order to put a support system into place. [ 5 ] Since the last judgment, the family situation has been unstable. A family council was held, very few relatives showed up and none of them were able to support the family in a meaningful way. The great grandfather's health has declined and he can't care for X the way he used to. Meanwhile, the youth's attendance in class remained a problem.

His relationship with the mother was also a cause for concern, as X went to his mother's for money, cigarettes and marijuana. The mother complied with her son's requests in order to avoid any arguments. [ 6 ] This situation led to a provisional order on April 12, 2012 following which Roy J. entrusted the youth to the mother. Roy J. also ordered the mother to go to the CLSC once a week regarding her drug and alcohol problems as well as to report to the Director of Youth Protection office once a week.

In addition, he ordered the youth to attend school, to respect a curfew and to report to the CLSC in order to meet the nurse for his medication intake. [ 7 ] The evidence shows that the youth's behaviour has gone from bad to worse and that the mother is incapable of providing any kind of structure to her son. X admitted to the applicant sniffing gas. Moreover, he smokes marijuana and hangs around with twenty- year-old adults who don't have a good influence on him. The youth suffers from ADHD. He failed to go to the CLSC in order to get his medication aimed at helping him concentrate and focus.

The mother testified to the effect that she decided unilaterally to stop giving the medication to her son because of the side effects. [ 8 ] Turns out that X barely goes to school and when he does, he is disruptive, verbally and psychically aggressive towards his

teacher and his peers. He constantly defies authority. [ 9 ] The above-mentioned evidence must be considered as new facts according to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. Consequently, the Court is authorized to review the previously rendered decision. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 10 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests a six-month placement of the youth in a rehabilitation center. [ 11 ] The mother and the youth disagree with the proposed measure.

The mother is of the opinion that she can overcome the above- mentioned difficulties even if her work at [Company A] means she is absent from home every other week during which time her son lives with relatives. [ 12 ] The mother has a certain willingness to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection's delegate but seems incapable of being consistent. She is obviously overwhelmed with her son's behavioural problems considering that, until recently, he had been living with his great grandfather. The youth's attorney is of the opinion that her client's entrustment in a rehabilitation center isn't necessary.

According to her, the youth needs support in his own community. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence and the decisions previously rendered, the Court is convinced that the situation at home will not change by itself.

The youth is in desperate need of a consistent, structured and stable environment capable of helping him with his anger management problems as well as help him develop an interest for traditional activities adapted to his age. [ 14 ] The Court is of the opinion that the length of the proposed measure is a minimum considering the amount of help X needs, but remains reasonable in order not to discourage him in the process. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […], 1999, remain endangered; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months with a progressive reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the mother for a period of one year; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the youth receives specific health care and services required by his situation; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother receives help for her parental skills; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the D.Y.P. regarding her personal problems in order to put an end to the compromising situation; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth, the mother and the great grandfather be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to the frequency and modalities; [ 24 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Myriame Gaudreault Legal Aid A Lawyer for the youth M e Marie-Claude DeGagné Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: June 12, 2012