2013 QCCQ 17532, 2013 QCCQ 17532

Protection de la jeunesse — 136052 2013 QCCQ 17532 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001592-135 DATE: September 30, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 City A Applicant -and- X , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Youth -and- A , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X, born on […], 1999, declared in danger. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the youth was present and represented by his lawyer.

The father is tetraplegic and was unable to attend Court. However, he was represented by his lawyer and was present by phone during a part of the hearing. Although the mother was duly served, she was absent.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] The represented parties admit that the security and development of X are endangered due to serious behavioural disturbance. [ 4 ] The evidence tendered by way of admissions and completed by the testimony of the applicant and documentary evidence convinces the Court that X does indeed have serious behavioural problems. [ 5 ] X was brought up in a chaotic family situation where domestic violence was well rooted. In 2007, while the parents were fighting, the mother pushed the father down a flight of stairs, leaving him tetraplegic. The father is now living in a long-term care facility in City B.

According to a previous psychiatric report, X suffers from an adjustment disorder with oppositional traits stemming from his family situation. The youth harbours much anger and resentment towards his mother for what happened to his father. [ 6 ] In June 2012, the parents signed an agreement on voluntary measures by which they agreed that their son be entrusted to a rehabilitation center. The main goal was to help X with his substance abuse problem as well as with his violent behaviour. [ 7 ] Shortly after his return home, the youth came back to his old ways.

He was not attending school as his life revolved around marijuana consumption. He was disrespectful towards his mother and her common law husband. Despite the mother's efforts to set house rules such as a curfew, the youth came and went as he pleased. This resulted in a provisional foster care order in a rehabilitation center on May 23, 2013. [ 8 ] X has integrated the [group home A]. At the beginning he complied well with the program requirements and showed positive leadership skills. He also showed willingness to discuss the issues that brought him back to the group home.

However, in the past weeks he has used his leadership abilities in a negative way. On one occasion, the police had to be called because the youth and a friend were

on the roof of the group home. They behaved in a violent manner towards the police. On another occasion, the youth was found under the influence of marijuana. [ 9 ] The mother wants what is best for her son but is overwhelmed by his behaviour. Their relationship remains strained. As for the father, he is a significant parental figure to his son. The Court worries to a certain extent that X is caught in a conflict of loyalty because of his father's handicap. In his testimony, the father denies denigrating the mother. [ 10 ] X denies having an addiction to drugs.

He would like to go back to City A and states that he doesn't enjoy being in City B. However, the evidence shows that the youth has an obvious drug problem. He must recognize it before anything else. APPLICABLES MEASURES [ 11 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director of Youth Protection asks that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months. [ 12 ] The Court is of the opinion that the Director's main recommendation is reasonable. X has the potential to succeed. He must however do his

part in the re-education program in place at the rehabilitation center. [ 13 ] As for the father, it is obvious that he is homesick. However, considering his state he cannot be the main caregiver, the Court invites him to encourage X to make amends with his mother. His son’s wellbeing is at stake. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth are in danger according to

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months; [ 18 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that X accepts treatment for his drug consumption; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the youth be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to terms and conditions; [ 20 ] ORDERS that both parents avoid denigrating one another in front of X; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance for the youth and his family for a period of six months; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the youth M e Angèle Tommasel represented by M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: August 20, 2013