2017 QCCQ 11952, 2017 QCCQ 11952

Protection de la jeunesse — 175124 2017 QCCQ 11952 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-008050-157 DATE : July 21, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FRANCINE GENDRON ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -et- X , né le [...] 1999 Child-respondant -et- A , Mother-respondant -et- B , Father-respondant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT Article 95 (1) of the Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On June 30, 2016, the Court orders that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center until August, 2017. Other orders are also rendered to assure that the adolescent and his father meet with their workers and collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection (the Director). [ 2 ] On January 6, 2017, the Court denies X’s application to return to his father’s care. [ 3 ] On February 20, 2017, the adolescent runs away from the reception center.

He is found by the peacekeepers three months later. [ 4 ] X is placed in detention from May 20 to June 14, 2017 and returns to the reception center after he is released. [ 5 ] The Director is asking the Court to revise the ongoing order and entrust X to his father until the age of majority, on November 23, 2017. [ 6 ] The mother is absent. She does not play a significant role in X’s life since his childhood and never showed in Court for him in the past. [ 7 ] The father is absent.

He send a letter explaining why he cannot accompany his son today and that he agrees with the measures sought by the Director. [ 8 ] The Court authorises the Director to proceed in the absence of the parents. [ 9 ] The adolescent admits all of the allegations of the Director’s modified application and agrees with the measures.

Developments in the situation [ 10 ] X continues to be involved in different incidents since December 5, 2016. [ 11 ] On December 30, he was consuming alcohol and using drugs at his mother’s boyfriend’s house, Mr. C. Everyone was intoxicated. X’s mother was gravely beaten by Mr. C on that night. It is not clear if the adolescent witnessed this incident. [ 12 ] On January 5, it was reported that the adolescent and his friends had been consuming alcohol and using drugs that evening. [ 13 ] Later in the night of January 6, he drove his brother’s car even though he had no driving license.

He slided on the road and hit a dich. The peacekeepers found X and his friends beside the road at around 2 am. [ 14 ] The policeman drove him and his friends to Mr. C’s house who was still incarcerated at that time. It was not clear at that time, for the policeman, if X breached his probation’s conditions. [ 15 ] The staff of the detention center reported that the adolescent was apparently still high at 2 pm.

The mother paid the fine and X was moved to La Source Detention Center. [ 16 ] The father did not know anything about his son’s whereabouts during that period. [ 17 ] During the months of December 2016 and January 2017, X missed on three separate occasions his transport to return to the reception center after a weekend at his father’s home. [ 18 ] Same thing happened on February 14, 2017. The family gave multiples reasons to explain why X didn’t return to the reception center. The father was angry about his son’s situation and blamed L’Avenir and KSCS. [ 19 ] The next day, Ms.

D brought the adolescent back to his unit. [ 20 ] On February 20, 2017, the father stated that his son won’t return to his unit and that he will hide him until he is 18. [ 21 ] Multiple interventions were made after that by the KSCS workers and the peacekeepers to find X, but without any success. At some moments, it was clear that he was at home. [ 22 ] The adolescent was found three months later. Since then, he had to face the consequences of his choices. [ 23 ] New charges were brought against him because he failed to appear in Court, but also for breach of conditions and probation.

He also faces new charges of assault stemming from February 2017 obstruction of justice and for driving his brother Y’s car, on January. [ 24 ] On May 25, 2017, X’s charges from the District A were settled. He served six days in a closed custody unit. [ 25 ] On May 26, 2017, he pleaded guilty in the District B to the charges of uttering treats and breach of keeping peace. He was sentenced to 30 days in closed custody plus eight month probation order without follow up. [ 26 ] On June 19, 2017, he was acquitted of the assault charge as the victim did not want to pursue charges.

He was sentenced to one day in detention for the breach (driving without a license while on condition not to be operating a motor vehicle). [ 27 ] On the same day, X went from La Source at the end his detention sentence to l’Étoile du Nord unit in Chambly.

ANALYSIS [ 28 ] After the January 6, 2017’s decision, X was upset and did not understand why, in his view, the Court did not see how well he had been going since June 2016. [ 29 ] The Court recognised that he improved his behavior in some way, but that he still has work to do before returning home. [ 30 ] In that perspective, it has been noted by X’s YCJA worker that while in placement, he was making efforts to complete certain conditions on his probation order, but that he would choose what conditions to respect and which not to.

In fact, he still participates in reckless situations that led to police involvement. [ 31 ] Also, L’Avenir’s staff reported that he would be acting superior toward them and insulting them. In their perspective, the adolescent did not feel like he needed to listen or work on himself because he was not held accountable at home and his actions were always covered by his father. [ 32 ] Since X is back in open unit, he starts to go home again. As usual, the father reported that things are going well. Mr. B says he wants to help his son to find a job.

Once again, he did not mobilise himself by taking the action required to obtain his birth certificate, first step to obtain his social security card who is essential when you want to work. The social worker assisted X in this proceeding. [ 33 ] Once again, the Court agrees with Mrs. [Social Worker 1] when she unlined that X’s behavior is the result of the lack of the father to provide his sons with structure, supervision and boundaries [1] .

A pattern has developed with X whereby he is finally put on a good path due to the exhaustive efforts of professionals around him and a structured and supportive follow up is put in place. At the moment this occurs, and things are going well, Mr. B sabotages these efforts. He sees these interventions as “punishments” and immediately pulls the rug out from underneath. At times like these, it is impossible to reach X and it is only a matter of time before he regresses into his past behaviors.

When this occurs, there is nothing his workers may do until an emergency arises and he ends up in detention, or arrested by the police. This pattern has gone on too long, and it

is X who ultimately suffers. [ 34 ] The father has to understand that because of his careless attitude, X has to face serious legal and personal consequences: he did not attend school, did not meet with his addiction worker, nor with his KSCS worker, he did not appears in Court under YCJA and breached numbers of probation and condition orders. [ 35 ] For now, X states that he has finally matured and gained some insight as how his lifestyle choices have had an impact on his future.

This, despite the father’s lack of involvement. [ 36 ] The adolescent also says that he realises that he will turn 18 soon, and that the legal impact of his reckless behavior will be much more serious before an adult Court. [ 37 ] Finally, he reports that he wants to focus on his independence by finishing school, acquiring specialised skills, getting a job and valid driver’s license. [ 38 ] The Court is still concerned with the history of the family and X’s reckless and delinquent behavior, including not respecting Court orders. [ 39 ] Moreover, X has recently shown motivation to stabilise his situation and at four months of majority, it is urgent that he learns to take his responsibility and how to behave properly in the respect of the rules while in society. [ 40 ] It is important that the father cooperates with the Director and meets with the workers as to improve his parental skills. [ 41 ] After receiving the admissions, and after considering the reports produced, the testimony heard and the adolescent’s interest, the Court believes that the situation adduced in evidence gives rise to protective measures. [ 42 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 44 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still in danger; [ 45 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on June 30, 2016; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to his father until age of majority; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; namely that the father collaborate with the KSCS workers and the reception centre in order to work on implementing consistent structure and supervision in the paternal environment; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continues to meet with an addiction worker and follows the recommendations; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continues to meet with his YCJA worker and follows the recommendations and that the father makes sure that they follow those conditions; [ 50 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent and his father meet with the Director of Youth Protection on a regular scheduled basis to update his situation; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their regard and their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the adolescent is in danger; [ 52 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 53 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X to the Director of Youth Division A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 54 ] THE WHOLE, until November 23 rd , 2017. __________________________________ FRANCINE GENDRON, J.C.Q.

M e Sarah Gaudry-Staud D.Y.P.’s Lawyer

M e Jean-Pierre Gaudreau Child’s Lawyer Hearing Date: July 21 st , 2017