2017 QCCQ 17872, 2017 QCCQ 17872

Protection de la jeunesse — 177956 2017 QCCQ 17872 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000533-171 DATE: August 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2004 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on March 8, 2017, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the DYP makes some amendments to the application after an agreement was reached between the parties, such as to entrust the child to the mother as a substitute to a rehabilitation center and to reduce the length of the measure. One conclusion is added to provide respite to her.

So, instead of March 31, 2018, the measure will end on July 31, 2018. All the parties agree with those changes. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and duly represented. Even if she denies, denies as written or ignores some allegations, she agrees with the measures as modified and proposed by the DYP. She also consents to the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 4 ] The father is present but not represented. However he still wishes to proceed without representation. He basically has the same position then the mother.

He only admits some of the allegations but he agrees with the amended measures requested. No evidence was submitted by the father nor did he testify. [ 5 ] The child is present and also represented by a lawyer. His counsel expresses his agreement towards the facts related. Moreover, he consents to the amended conclusions suggested by the DYP and the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 6 ] In the last order, the child was entrusted to his mother. The situation worsened to a point that the child had to be entrusted on June 9, 2017, to a Rehabilitation center.

The measures were extended until the present day. [ 7 ] At the time, there were several concerns about the child’s behaviour in school and at home. It was hard to reach the mother when problems arise at school. [ 8 ] Basically the child was defiant and even assaulted another student. He does not attend it on a regular basis. Furthermore, he was not complying with school regulations and was finally suspended indefinitely. He is using drugs. Lastly, he ran away from home.

[ 9 ] It was also alleged that the parents did not collaborate with the services throughout that time. [ 10 ] The DYP delegate testifies about the reasons of the reduction of the length of the measure. In fact, since he was entrusted to the Rehabilitation center the child is doing well. The reports are very positive. [ 11 ] It seems that the child in the unit is respectful and polite. He is also receptive to counselling. [ 12 ] Even if the situation has improved, still better communication between the parents and the child is required. The mother has from now on to give full disclosure to the DYP.

She also has to impose a structure because her child function well in such environment, as we already observe. The DYP delegate believes and feels that the mother is now on board. [ 13 ] The mother also takes the stand and explains to the Court all the steps that she has taken so far. She met with a psychologist in order to work on her own personal issues. She is willing to go through any evaluation requested by the DYP. Her son had visits with her and it went well. She tries to put in place a structure for him. Her son understands the rules and follows it.

She is open to receive help from services and to collaborate. [ 14 ] The situation is still fragile and a lot of work is still ahead. The mother and the child have to pursue their effort and be consistent or else other measure will have to be considered. She has to take care of her son and not delegate that role to family members like she did in the past. Previously, most of the time the child was not at home but with his grandmothers or his uncles. [ 15 ] When problems started in school the mother was not involved and she also tend to minimize her son’s behaviour. She was not taking it seriously.

The situation has changed and she is more aware of her son’s difficulty. She wants to help him and be there for him. [ 16 ] Considering the recent implication of the mother and the child, a return home could be a suitable alternative to the Rehabilitation center. Furthermore, they got involved with services and follows up. Now, we will see if their efforts can remain constant and situation resolved or at least evolve positively. [ 17 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger.

Under the circumstances and considering the admission and consent of the parties, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension or order; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 20 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on March 8, 2017; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother until July 31, 2018; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES that the child benefits from respite in a Rehabilitation center for a period not exceeding five consecutive days per month; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents and the child benefit from the services of an external educator; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child participate in an psychological evaluation and continues his psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents not to talk negatively about the other in the presence of the youth; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in anger management counselling; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a psychological evaluation and a psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the therapist; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child and his family actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until July 31, 2018; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order.

__________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing August 9, 2017 Written judgment filed on September 13, 2017