2016 QCCQ 19627, 2016 QCCQ 19627

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610337 2016 QCCQ 19627 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 31379-167 Date: December 12, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of December 12, 2016, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a Motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a thirteen year-old child, based on his lack of school attendance. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated July 4, 2016 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, the child was subject to Youth Court orders from 2013 to 2015, due to the child’s serious behaviour problems, as it appears in file no. 525-41-027593-136; 3.2. the child’s behaviour is still challenging, as he does not respect the mother’s authority and he displays aggressive behaviour; 3.3. the security of development of the child is considered to be in danger where he is of school age and does not attend school, or is frequently absent without reason, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child is isolated, he is constantly on his computer and goes to bed very late;

b) there is no structure in the home;

c) during the 2015-2016 school year, the child has been mostly absent from school;

d) the child reports that he does not feel comfortable learning or speaking French and considers this to be a part of his school absenteeism during the 2015-2016 school year;

e) however, the mother has switched the child to an English school during the 2015-2016 school year but the child continued to be absent from school, as he claimed that the transport made him sick;

f) on the days that the child attended school, he did not respect the school staff authority, slept on his desk, did not bring any supplies in the classroom and walked out of the school when he wanted;

g) the child failed his school year;

h) the child does not take any responsibility for his school absenteeism;

i) the mother does not take any personal responsibility for the child’s school absenteeism, nor does she place any responsibility on the child;

j) after having registered the child to different schools during the 2015-2016, the mother is trying to register the child to a previous school ([ High School A]) in September 2016, but the School Board is refusing;

k) the mother has not been cooperative with the school, the school Board and service providers who tried to help her deal with the child’s behaviour and school absenteeism;

l) the mother has recently accepted the services of an educator in the home;

m) the child refuses to cooperate with the educator and the youth protection worker; 3.4. as for the father, he was physically abusive to the mother, the child and his sibling in the past; 3.5. the father’s whereabouts are unknown (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The hearing on the merits began on August 19, 2016. The Director then recommended that the child remain entrusted to his mother and be ordered to attend school.

Both mother and son acknowledged the need to correct the situation, agreed to ensure the child’s consistent attendance at school and also recognized the benefit of a psychiatric assessment to better understand the child’s difficulties. [ 5 ] The parties thus agreed to an interim order and the hearing was continued on December 12, 2016. [ 6 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate; D-2: Court report, written by [Social Worker 2], dated July 29, 2016; D-3: Judgments rendered by the Hounorable Taya di Pietro, en liasse; D-4: Psychological evaluation report, written by Peter Kelly, dated August 26, 2013; D-5: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1], dated December 2, 2016; D-6: School Report card 2016-2017; D-7: Psychiatric assessment of X, written by Dr.

Brian Greenfield, dated November 21, 2016. [ 7 ] The child underwent a psychiatric assessment on November 21, 2016 indicating that he does not suffer from any current psychiatric disorder and that no psychiatric follow-up is required [2] . [ 8 ] However, it was recommended that he be allowed to attend the school of his choice to increase his motivation. [ 9 ] Despite continued difficulties, his school attendance increased considerably; he “passed all of his subjects except French”. [ 10 ] In addition, his behavior has also significantly improved: Since August, X has been registered and attending [High School B].

He was initially registered in Secondary 1, but due to his academic performance he was moved to Secondary 2. X has displayed no disrespectful or oppositional behaviour at school.

X has stated on multiple occasions that his goal is to return to [High School A] and that he wants to work hard to be able to return. [3] [ 11 ] Consequently, the Director recommends continued social follow-up to ensure the child’s consistent school attendance, including by encouraging a return to the school of his choice and the parties are in agreement with the proposed measures. [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under

section 38.1 (

b) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 15 ] ORDERS that the mother collaborate with service providers in an effort to encourage her son to attend school or participate in an educational program; [ 16 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange relevant information about the child and the parent with treating

professionals regarding participation and attendance; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the mother not change the child’s school unless previously authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that, following the child’s psychiatric assessment by Dr.

Brian Greenfield, it is recommended that X attend the school of his choice, more specifically [High School A]; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that it is the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to support the family in that regard and take steps to encourage the child’s return to the school of his choice; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] THE WHOLE for a period of seven months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the child Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the mother TD/vl