2013 QCCQ 12345, 2013 QCCQ 12345

Protection de la jeunesse — 134145 2013 QCCQ 12345 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-005238-985 DATE: August 12, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […] 1998 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of August 12, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered November 28, 2012, ordering that the adolescent be entrusted to a hospital until June 30, 2013, taking judicial notice that the adolescent would be residing at the Institute of A [Town A].

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family until June 30, 2013. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent started engaging with the program at Institute A, but continued to display serious behavioural disturbances, more particularly: . the adolescent has been displaying violent and aggressive behaviours; . the adolescent has been making threats and insults; . the adolescent has been displaying defiant behaviours; • Since February and March 2013, the adolescent has been more fully invested in the program and the frequency of his aggressive behaviours has decreased; • The adolescent was found guilty under the Youth Criminal Justice Act on several counts related to his behaviour in placement; • The adolescent is responding well to the structure imposed at A Institute ; • At times, the adolescent still requires a one on one supervision in the classroom and in the program; • The mother has not visited the adolescent in the hospital often, but has maintained regular telephone contacts; • Those contacts are now more positive then at the beginning of the Court order;

• Mr. B, the adolescent’s biological father, has completed a DNA test and intends to take steps in Superior Court in order to have his paternity recognized; • Mr. B visited the adolescent on a few occasions; • Ms. C, the adolescent’s cousin, has been visiting the adolescent every second week and has been a steady and positive influence for him. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be maintained at Institute A for a period of 12 months, that he continue to receive all health care services required by his situation and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 5 ] Through his attorney, Mr. B asks the court, under

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act , to be granted party status. Mr. B is X's biological father although his name does not appear on the adolescent's birth certificate. He has been visiting his son at A regularly over the past few months and has collaborated with the Director of Youth Protection. The other parties to the proceedings do not object to this request. Under the circumstances, the Court grants party status to Mr. C under

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 6 ] The mother is not present at the hearing, although she was served with a copy of the motion. The mother was reached by phone and asked that the case be postponed as she was working. Considering the presence of the other parties and the witnesses, the Court refused the postponement and proceeded in the absence of the mother.

The mother informed the youth worker that she considers that keeping her son at Institute A for a period of 12 months is too long. [ 7 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and says he would accept to stay at A, but only for a few months. X testifies that he wishes to return to the Campus A, which is a structured environment and where he can receive the services needs, including a psychological follow-up. The adolescent says that his behaviour has improved and that he no longer displays aggressive behaviours.

He admits that he was sometimes sent to his room by some of the teachers, but says that things have improved since the summer. He did however throw a chair at a staff member a few weeks ago and therefore lost certain privileges and has to eat certain of his meals in his room. [ 8 ] Mr. C, the adolescent’s biological father, has been visiting his son at A regularly over the past few months. He admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures, although he considers that X does not need the setting of A for a year. Mr.

C says that he understands that his son suffers from an attachment disorder and needs treatment. [ 9 ] Ronnie was admitted at the A Institute of [Town A] on September 12, 2012, on the recommendations of Dr. Martin Gignac, psychiatrist, who was following the adolescent when he was placed at the Campus A. At the time, the adolescent’s behaviour was aggressive and deteriorated to the point where he was regularly in Encadrement Intensif in the [unit A].

The Court reports dated November 21, 2012, and July 19, 2013, both mention this period and describe the situation as follows: Court report, November 21, 2012, p.1: X’s behaviour continues to be extremely challenging and has deteriorated in all areas of his life and his needs can only be met in a highly structured and predictable treatment program such as the [unit B] on the [Campus A]. X continues to require the structure, expertise, and consistency of a rehabilitation centre where he can continue to learn age appropriate life and social skills.

X continues to have a difficult time coping with any kind of change and requires consistency structure and supervision to be able to function on a daily basis. X’s challenging and oppositional behaviour towards the interveners have increased as has his level of violence and aggression which have led to three separate Encadrement Intensif placements in the [unit A]. X continues to have a predictable escalation of his behaviour which at this point usually involves increasing levels of restraint, the need for isolation in the isolation room and the support of the campus security staff even in the closed [unit A].

X has received ten separate charges of assault, making threats and pulling the fire alarm which is to be adjudicated in the [TOWN B] court. Court report, July 19, 2013, p.1: X’s behaviour had been extremely challenging and had deteriorated in all areas of his life and his needs can only be met in a highly structured and predictable treatment program such as those offered at [campus A]. He had been in three separate Encadrement Intensif periods and accumulated criminal charges of assaults, uttering threats and mischief i.e. pulling fire alarms. […] [ 10 ] In November 2012, after a 30 day assessment, Dr.

Louis Morissette, psychiatrist recommended that the adolescent be entrusted to the adolescent unit at the A Institute until the end of June 2013. The psychiatric report of Dr. Morissette concludes to a severe attachment disorder, severe conduct disorder and possible symptoms of post-traumatic stress. [ 11 ] The diagnosis is as follows: IMPRESSION DIAGNOSTIQUE Axe I : Trouble des conduites sévères à début précoce. Trouble de l’attachement de type désinhibé vu le vécu en bas âge. Possibilité de certains symptômes résiduels de stress post-traumatique vu la victimisation dans le passé.

Possibilité d’un trouble déficitaire de l’attention.

Axe II : Organisation très fragile et pathologique de la personnalité. X a développé une carapace narcissique et antisociale (il a une haute estime de lui-même, il ne respecte pas les règles sociales usuelles, il veut la satisfaction de ses besoins de façon immédiate, il est intolérant à l’attente et à la frustration, il a peu d’empathie, il est opposant face à l’autorité), mais cette carapace narcissique cache une grande vulnérabilité, une grande fragilité au niveau de l’estime de soi et de la confiance en soi.

Vu le vécu en bas âge, les nombreux déplacements, la victimisation, il a développé clairement une grande difficulté à faire confiance à l’adulte et il ne compte que sur lui- même pour satisfaire ses besoins. Il y a aussi très probablement une colère importante envers la figure maternelle qui n’a pas été présente et qui l’a abandonné. [ 12 ] At the hearing of August 12, Dr. Morissette's report dated June 6, 2013, was filed in the Court record under exhibit D-2. Dr.

Morissette testifies that the diagnosis of November 2012 remains and that it is not necessary to have X retested as the diagnosis of severe attachment disorder is clear. [ 13 ] Dr. Morissette says that he sees X a few times a week when he goes to the unit and that he regularly speaks to X on a one on one basis. The adolescent regularly asks for more privileges. The adolescent can discuss his behaviours but remains unable to talk about his family and his feelings. [ 14 ] Dr. Morissette states that X’s behaviour has improved over the last year. He is less verbally aggressive and can take

part in certain activities. However, his behaviour remains challenging; for example, he is sometimes sent back to his room or to the unit by his teachers and often cannot be allowed to eat with the other adolescents because of his behaviour. He needs to continue to have a good behaviour if he wants to participate in activities outside of [institute A] and be allowed to have visits with his family at their home. Dr. Morissette explains that the unit functions on a system of rewards and consequences. Therefore, X knows very well why certain kids in his unit receive privileges. [ 15 ] Dr.

Morissette explains that due to the adolescent’s attachment disorder X can provoke people and behave in a manner which causes people to reject him. It took time for X to invest in the program and he was very anxious before going to Court to face his criminal charges. It is torture for X not to know what to expect and where he will be residing. Sending X back to the [Campus A] would be uprooting him again. [ 16 ] Furthermore, Dr. Morissette states that if the adolescent is removed from the adolescent unit of the Institute A, he will not be readmitted.

He explains that X is now almost fifteen years old and that it will therefore be more difficult to work with him and that the work accomplished so far would be lost. Dr. Morissette concludes that X needs to consolidate the gains he has made since entering the program. Therefore, he should remain in the adolescent unit at the Institute A until the end of June 2014. [ 17 ] Dr. Morissette concludes his report as follows: La question est maintenant de savoir puisqu’il y a eu une légère amélioration, s’il y a lieu de « déraciner »

X et le retourner dans un milieu qui en apparence est moins contraignant, mais qui aux yeux de X peut être moins sécurisant. Notre opinion est la suivante : X devrait être placé sous la Loi de la protection de la jeunesse à l’Institut A de Ville A jusqu’à la fin de l’année scolaire 2013-2014, c’est-à-dire jusqu’à la fin juin 2014. Nous sommes maintenant à l’étape de la réadaptation à moyen et long terme et nous viserons un retour dans un milieu de vie le moins contraignant possible à l’été 2014.

L’unité des adolescents lui permettra d’avoir accès aux services requis de son état, lui permettra d’avoir accès à l’attention particulière qu’il nécessite et, si les comportements sont favorables et adaptés, il pourra avoir des sorties avec sa cousine et éventuellement son père si ce dernier demeure intéressé à garder contact. De même, si la mère veut collaborer, il y aura accès à des rencontres, mais répétons, les congés auront lieu uniquement si les comportements en milieu de vie sont adaptés.

Nous comprenons que la suggestion peut sembler lourde (une année de placement à l’Institut A de Ville A, unité des adolescents), mais nous sommes d’opinion que bien qu’il y ait eu certaines améliorations au niveau du comportement (diminution de l’impulsivité verbale et physique), nous sommes au début d’un processus qui permet à X de faire confiance davantage à l’environnement et qui permet à X de mieux s’adapter à un environnement qui voudra de plus en plus normalisant.

L’unité de traitement à l’Institut A de Ville A peut être une unité très contraignante, si les comportements sont violents contre la personne, mais peut être aussi une unité dans laquelle le jeune peut améliorer ses habiletés interpersonnelles, ses capacités d’adaptation, aux déceptions et aux frustrations, etc. [ 18 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], youth worker, and read the Court report dated July 19, 2013, filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. [SOCIAL WORKER] testifies that X receives visits from his father, his brother, his sister and his cousin.

Contacts with his mother are sporadic and the mother's collaboration with the medical team remains difficult. [Social Worker 1] also meets with X regularly, sometimes accompanied by [Social Worker 2], who was X's youth worker until November 2012, or by X's young offenders' case worker, D. [ 19 ] X’s behaviour has improved and he can better control his anger. On December 12, 2012, X was sentenced on four counts of assault, three counts of uttering threats and two counts of setting off fire alarms and received a one year probation. [ 20 ] A case conference was conducted on June 5, 2013, at Institute A.

The treatment team was unanimous, the recommendation was that X remain at institute A until the end of June 2014 as he needs to consolidate the gains he has made. [ 21 ] The evidence reveals that the program at the Institute A has succeeded in stabilizing X’s behaviour. This in itself is a great achievement considering that his behaviour had been deteriorating since 2009, to the point where he was almost constantly in Encadrement Intensif at the [unit A] and was no longer able to attend school.

[ 22 ] Ronnie has started to participate in many of the activities of the program at the adolescent unit of the Institute A. He is learning that he can trusts the adults that surround him and that his behaviours have consequences. At this time, it would not be in his best interest to transfer him to another institution. X’s difficulties are very severe and long standing. His social skills are weak and he has difficulties with relationships. He admitted not being close to any of the other adolescents in his unit. He continues to utter disobliging and insulting remarks and lately threw a chair.

Finally, his efforts towards school, wood workshop and activities are not consistent. [ 23 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent's best interest to be maintained at the adolescent unit of the Institute A until June 1, 2014. This will assure stability and a sense of security. Over the last year, X has realised that the staff of the adolescent's unit at Institute A will not reject him.

Finally, X’s behaviour has been improving and he will therefore benefit from outings if he maintains his collaboration. [ 24 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised. [ 25 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 27 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the adolescent X; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to the hospital setting of the l Institute A until June 1 st , 2014; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care services required by his situation and that the recommendations of the treating professionals of the Institute A be followed; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive individual counselling and RECOMMENDS that it be available as of October 15, 2013; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that a schooling plan be elaborated for the adolescent; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent, his mother and Mr.

B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including telephone contacts and physical contacts, taking into consideration the best interest of the adolescent and in consultation with the treating professionals involved; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his extended family members be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the best interest of the adolescent and in consultation with the treating professionals involved; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

B collaborate with the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign all required consents concerning the adolescent in the event that the mother cannot be reached in a reasonable delay; [ 36 ] ORDERS that Mr. B submit to random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the consent of Mr.

B to submit to random drug testing; [ 38 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family, the whole until June 1 st , 2014; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. AMJ/dg Signed August 15, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. Me Camille Champeval Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me François Parizeau Counsel for the adolescent

Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Counsel for the mother Me Karine Dallaire Counsel for the biological father Date of hearing: August 12, 2013