2013 QCCQ 17782, 2013 QCCQ 17782

Protection de la jeunesse — 136148 2013 QCCQ 17782 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000561-126 DATE: December 2, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 1997 [social worker 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] in city A district A (Quebec) […] Applicant a , residing and domiciled at […] in city B, district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] in city B, district A (Quebec) […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to revise and extend the decision rendered on June 19, 2012 by this Court pursuant to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] On June 19, 2012 the Court ratifies a draft agreement. The Court orders that the youth remains with his parents. The Court orders also that the youth attends school on a regular basis. [ 3 ] The youth and the mother are present and represented by a lawyer. [ 4 ] The father is absent because he is detained.

He is represented by a lawyer who speaks for him. [ 5 ] In August 2013, the applicant was asking the Court to entrust the youth to an establishment operating a rehabilitation center for a period of one year and then be entrusted to a foster family until he reached majority. This recommendation was made because the youth was missing school on a regular basis.

Also throughout this situation the parents were not respecting the measures contained in the draft agreement endorsed by the Court. [ 6 ] Today the applicant's recommendations are quite different because the youth's situation has changed a lot. [ 7 ] Since last August the youth has taken different steps. He is enrolled in a school program for adults and is quite motivated to graduate. The youth has admitted to the applicant that he was responsible for the entire situation, not his parents.

He is collaborating with the applicant despite his position concerning the file. [ 8 ] Considering those recent facts the applicant is now recommending that the youth be entrusted to his parents with different measures for a period of twelve months. [ 9 ] The youth and both parents agree with those recommendations. [ 10 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven and relevant to the present case. The facts [ 11 ] This audience started on August 21, 2013 and was adjourned on October 17, 2013 to give to the father the opportunity to be present.

Despite his lawyer's efforts the father who was detained was not brought before the Court by the authorities. [ 12 ] On October 17, the father was absent again. The father's lawyer told to the Court that his client has mandated him to represent him and that both parents share the same position concerning their youth's situation. [ 13 ] On June 19, 2012 all the parties signed a draft agreement that was endorsed by the Court on the same day. [ 14 ] In this agreement the parties admitted that the youth's security and development were in danger because of his high degree of absenteeism in school.

Also it was admitted that the parents didn't collaborate with the school.

[ 15 ] On July 31, 2012 an appointment was made for the youth to meet a paediatrician in order to evaluate the youth and know whether medication would be appropriate to decrease his anxiety about returning to school in September. [ 16 ] The youth never met the paediatrician. The appointment was rescheduled in October and the same morning the father left a message for the applicant saying that the youth was doing well and didn't need that appointment. [ 17 ] At the beginning of the school year the youth attendance is good. In October 2012 the youth misses six days then in November, eleven days and three periods.

The applicant meets the youth and his parents. According to that meeting it is apparent that the youth doesn't like his practical training in mechanics but has not mentioned it to anyone. [ 18 ] The situation is getting worst within the next few months. [ 19 ] On January 11, 2013 the applicant reminds the parents that the agreement is not respected. The father contacts the applicant to tell him that his wife does not understand the agreement (written in French) and therefore it is no good.

The applicant informs the father that the Director of Youth Protection will have to go back in Court. [ 20 ] On February 18, 2013 a new meeting is held with the applicant, the mother and the new director of the secondary school where the youth goes to school. The youth decides to go back in school in order to respect the draft agreement. Few days later the youth misses school again and the parents try to justify the absence. [ 21 ] In March 2013 the practical training environment are difficult to find. The school administration suggests schooling on every school calendar day.

Despite this new alternative the youth refuses to go to school and the parents agree. [ 22 ] Throughout this situation the father mentions to the applicant that he is tired of giving false reasons to the school to justify the youth's absences. The parents seem to have tried many things to get their son to attend school but when faced with this failure they say it is everyone's fault. [ 23 ] The youth is 16 years old. He is very intelligent. When he attends school he is a good student. He has no learning disability or behavioural problems. [ 24 ] The youth's lifestyle is lacking rules and structures.

He does not have many friends and prefers staying at home and playing video games. His older brother is 22 and is idle. [ 25 ] According to the applicant the isolation is a way of life of this family. They rarely leave the apartment. The parents protect the youth in his lifestyle. [ 26 ] The father is an anxious person. He has problem of anxiety diagnosed by a health professional. He has faced the justice a few times for different types of offences. In January 2012, he made death threats against a Centre Jeunesse worker and a judge.

His sentence was scheduled in May 2013. [ 27 ] Despite all that the father wants what is best for his son and he knows that the youth should attend school. However he has chosen to side with the youth. [ 28 ] The mother remains in the background. The father is the person who controls. The mother has a mental health problem diagnosed by a professional. She takes medication to decrease her anxiety. She wants what is best for her son but not have much influence on him. • Since the last Court audience [ 29 ] Since the last Court audience the youth has changed his attitude concerning school.

He missed school twice but for very good reasons. He is going well in school. [ 30 ] Considering all the evidence including the fact that the youth has changed his attitude concerning school and is doing well and that the parents agree to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, the Court is convinced that the youth's situation must be revised. [ 31 ] The Court concludes that the youth's security and development are still compromised and that the applicant's recommendations are appropriate, reasonable and likely to put an end to the youth's situation.

For these reasons the Court: [ 32 ] Maintains that the situation of X, born on […], 1997 is still in danger; [ 33 ] Entrusts the youth to his parents; [ 34 ] The following measures are ordered for twelve moths; [ 35 ] Orders that X and his parents participate actively in the execution of the measures ordered; [ 36 ] Orders that a person working for an establishment or organism provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his parents; [ 37 ] Orders that X and his parents regularly report to the Director of Youth Protection at least twice a month to inform him on the evolution of the situation; [ 38 ] Recommends that the youth has a therapeutic follow-up namely with a psychologist if he needs it;

[ 39 ] Orders the parents to do everything they can to ensure the youth is not exposed to anyone including them under the influence of drug or alcohol in their own house; [ 40 ] Orders the youth to attend school or any learning environment on a regular basis; [ 41 ] Recommends that the father participate actively to any program for men in difficulty, and takes judicial notice of his consent to this measure; [ 42 ] Orders that any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 43 ] Entrusts the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the youth Me Jean-François Lacasse, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: August 21 and October 17, 2013