2013 QCCQ 7743, 2013 QCCQ 7743

Protection de la jeunesse — 131369 2013 QCCQ 7743 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] VILLAGE OF […] Youth Division No. 640-41-001417-119 DATE: February 19, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS 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, born on […], 1999 Adolescent and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ AMENDED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant applied to the Court, asking for the review of a decision rendered on April 23, 2012 by Denyse Leduc J., confirming a draft agreement submitted by the parties. [ 2 ] The adolescent was present at the hearing and represented by an attorney, whereas both the father and the mother were absent. [ 3 ] However, shortly before the hearing, the mother spoke with an attorney and, without officially appointing her, asked that she inform the Court of her agreement with the applicant’s proposal to have the youth placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The father, usually the main caregiver, was absent, despite having been informed of the hearing and been offered every possible chance of transportation so that he could attend. [ 5 ] In fact, the father appears to have lost interest in his son and decided to leave him to his own devices. [ 6 ] The mother is not involved in her son’s life on a regular basis and apparently does not intend to change the situation in the immediate future. [ 7 ] The adolescent developed delinquent behaviour that, among other things, led him to commit certain offences, defy authority and skip school regularly. [ 8 ] Certain measures were set up to correct the situation, but the father collaborated little, if at all, with the various workers

involved in the case. [ 9 ] He refused any assistance the youth protection authorities could offer him, saying that he did not want the organization to be involved in his life. [ 10 ] Thus, after some improvement in X behaviour up to summer's end 2012, he then reverted to his former ways. [ 11 ] The situation apparently degenerated to the point where the father purely and simply kicked his son out of the house, on October 18, 2012, without making sure he would have somewhere to go. [ 12 ] In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the status of endangerment must be maintained and that there are few options other than to ratify the applicant's recommendation for placement in a rehabilitation centre, while hoping that the father will change his mind and realize that he is still the person in the best position to help his son, if he is willing. [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1999, are still in danger; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months starting on January 8, 2013, with reintegration into his father's home, if the situation allows; [ 17 ] ORDERS that all contact between the adolescent and his mother and father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with respect to frequency and terms; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 20 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS J.C.Q.

Mtre. Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child

Date of hearing: January 8, 2013