2015 QCCQ 12761, 2015 QCCQ 12761

Protection de la jeunesse — 152598 JP2122 2015 QCCQ 12761 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000483-153 DATE: July 28, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , authorized person by the DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2002 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court is seized with a petition for protection pursuant to

section 38 of the youth protection act . [ 2 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) recommends that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for the next six months. While the mother agrees, the father wants his son to be entrusted to him. [ 3 ] As for the youth, his first choice is to live with his father, and if it is not possible, he would rather go back with his mother. [ 4 ] The youth is only 12 year-old, but he has to cope with serious difficulties. [ 5 ] The parents separated about five years ago and their three children remained with the mother.

The father lives with his own parents and has regular contacts with the youth. [ 6 ] The relationship between the parents is still antagonistic. They are unable to communicate and tend to blame one another. The youth demonstrates behavioural problems. [ 7 ] He is first entrusted to a rehabilitation centre a few years ago, under regular social services provided to the family. [ 8 ] In 2014, his situation is reported to the DYP. At the time, the youth is verbally and physically abusive with his parents,

siblings, teachers and other students. He does not attend school regularly due to his behaviour. His aggressiveness undermines the physical and psychological integrity of himself and others. [ 9 ] The parents then admit the situation and, on July 15, 2014, an agreement on voluntary measures takes place to entrust to youth to a rehabilitation centre for six months. [ 10 ] When the agreement on voluntary measures comes to an end, another one is agreed upon by the parties, in order to extend the placement for six additional months. [ 11 ] The youth resides in [Centre A], since July of last year.

If he remains entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, the DYP foresees his transfer to a unit located in his community very soon. [ 12 ] The question that this Court has to answer is the following: Does the youth’s situation still require the structure that only a rehabilitation centre can provide? [ 13 ] Reports are filed as evidence and several witnesses are heard, notably the youth and both parents. The evidence reveals that the situation is still problematic. [ 14 ] The youth’s behaviour issues are still present, despite services put in place in order to help him. [ 15 ] The youth has a high energy level.

Unfortunately, he also shows impulsivity and aggressiveness. He is described by professionals who work with him as a likeable youth who requires a high level of structure and adult support to regulate his emotions, behaviours and social interactions.

He has difficulties in applying self-control, understanding social cues and concentrating on tasks. [ 16 ] The youth was assessed by a psychologist a couple of months ago and her clinical impressions are to the effect that he suffers from attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and non verbal learning disability (NVLD). It is relevant to mention that ADHD and ODD were already diagnosed in the past. The psychologist suggests that the youth see a psychiatrist to determine the required medication, if any. [ 17 ] The last school year is difficult for the youth.

He is very disruptive, unable to sit still. Most days, the workers have to pick him up and bring him back to the rehabilitation centre. He is suspended from school because of his behaviour on quite a few occasions. [ 18 ] In the rehabilitation centre, the youth is very disrespectful at times, and he shows a lot of defiance and opposition. He is still verbally aggressive towards other adolescents. [ 19 ] The youth has regular contacts with both parents. [ 20 ] When he visits his mother, problems are reported, difficulty to comply with rules and aggressiveness sometimes.

The mother admits the problems and is willing to work towards solving them. [ 21 ] When the mother calls the youth, their conversation are short and sometimes unsatisfying for the youth. [ 22 ] The father reports no difficulty at home when his son visits. Neither do the grandparents, who live under the same roof. On one occasion, an incident occurs at the father’s and it worries the mother. The youth drives a four-wheeler with his younger brother, unsupervised and not wearing helmets. They have an accident and the brother gets cut on his lip.

The father, however, denies any form of neglect in his family environment. [ 23 ] Father and son speak frequently on the phone and the youth appreciates the conversations. They obviously get along very well. [ 24 ] The youth shows behaviour problems, but he also has to cope with the impact of a major ongoing conflict opposing his parents. As far as their son is concerned, they disagree on practically everything. [ 25 ] The mother fears for her son’s safety and health care when he is with the father. [ 26 ] As for the father, he openly blames the mother for their son’s difficulties.

His animosity towards the mother is noticeable when he testifies. The paternal grandparents obviously feel the same about the mother and the youth’s issues. [ 27 ] The father and the grandparents declare that the youth has a lot of energy but, beside that, to them he is just an average kid. The grandmother testifies that youth protection should not be involved because the youth does not have enough problems to justify such an intervention. She also disagrees with the youth taking medication and so does the father. He says it was tried before and it did not help.

The father believes there are alternative ways to deal with the youth’s diagnoses. Unsurprisingly, the father blames the mother for being unable to handle their son. [ 28 ] As the father and his parents put it, the youth does not have real behaviour issues, if he does something he likes, he does well. The grandmother adds that “If you annoy a child, eventually he’s going to react”. [ 29 ] It is relevant to consider the grandparents’ attitude and perceptions, since the father lives with them. They obviously have a major influence on their son.

It is noticeable at the hearing and also when the youth protection worker meets with the father. The grandparents are always present and take an important

part in meetings. The worker notices they take decisions. [ 30 ] The grandmother is very adamant on the youth going home with them. The grandparents influence the father’s opinions, as

well as the youth’s. [ 31 ] The worker also witnesses the father and the grandparents degrading the mother. [ 32 ] The Court has no doubt that the father and his parents deeply love the youth and have a genuine desire to have him home with them. The problem is, though, they are unable to see the serious issues the youth has to deal with. They minimize the situation. The evidence leads the Court to believe there are little rules and structure in their family environment. Their attitude towards the mother also has a negative impact on the youth.

Therefore, the Court believes they cannot, for the time being, answer the youth’s needs, considering his behavioural disturbances. [ 33 ] The father has to change his mindset. He will have to cooperate openly with professionals who are there to help his son. [ 34 ] The evidence leads to one clear conclusion: a family setting is not appropriate for the youth, who needs more structure and professional help on a daily basis. [ 35 ] The DYP’s intention, if the youth remains in a rehabilitation centre, is to transfer him to [centre B], in his community.

It will make it easier to have regular contacts with both parents and facilitate the transition towards his family integration. [ 36 ] Since the mother cooperates with services and has legal custody, the DYP foresees the youth will return to his maternal home, after the placement. However, the possibility of eventually entrusting the youth to his father should not be put aside, if the father cooperates. [ 37 ] In a recent past, the father’s cooperation is very difficult. He rarely goes to the worker’s office to meet her. He requests contacts at the last minute. He delays providing authorizations for services.

He is quite stubborn concerning medication. [ 38 ] Under the circumstances, it appears more realistic to foresee a home integration at the mother’s. However, the situation can evolve if the father changes his mindset, in the best interest of the youth. [ 39 ] For the time being, putting contacts in place with the father is an issue. While the father wants lengthy visits, the mother objects because she worries about her son’s safety. The Court will therefore establish minimum contacts that will have to be put in place.

Of course, the parties will be free to agree on more frequent or longer visits, following how the situation evolves. [ 40 ] Meanwhile, the Court hopes that a few more months in a rehabilitation centre will be enough for the youth to learn to behave more adequately. [ 41 ] The Court also hopes that both parents will be able to put aside their animosity and conflicts in order to put their focus on their son’s needs. Both parents love the youth and he needs both his mother and father.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 42 ] GRANTS the petition for protection; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center designated by the DYP until January 30, 2016; [ 45 ] ORDERS that visits between the child and his parents take place upon agreement between the parties and, if they do not reach an agreement, ORDERS that visits with each parent take place at least twice a month including a sleepover; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues and develop better parenting skills; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in meeting with the DYP on a regular basis; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in external education services; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the ordered measures; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until January 30, 2016; [ 51 ] 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 judgment.

__________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the petitioner Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father Dates of hearing: July 7 & 9, 2015