2017 QCCQ 1787, 2017 QCCQ 1787

Protection de la jeunesse — 17536 2017 QCCQ 1787 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000483-153 DATE: February 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner and X born on [...], 2002 Adolescent and A and B Parents/Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 youth is the object of protective measures since a few years, notably because of behavioural problems. Furthermore, the parents have a conflictual relationship and different approaches concerning upbringing. [ 2 ] In July of 2016, the adolescent is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre because of his behavioural issues. Prior to that, he lived with his father.

On August 3, the Court orders that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for almost seven months. [ 3 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) now asks the Court to revise that judgment and to entrust the youth back to the care of his father. Both father and son agree with the DYP. However, the mother wishes that her son be entrusted to her. All parties are in agreement with an extension of the follow-up for the year to come. [ 4 ] The adolescent’s situation evolves positively during the last few months, even though the first month of placement is stormy.

Shortly after the last hearing, the youth runs away from the unit. While on the run, he drinks alcohol and smokes marijuana. [ 5 ] Upon his return, the adolescent is entrusted to an intensive supervision unit for several days. Afterwards, he is transferred back to [unit A], in his community. [ 6 ] From September and ever since, the youth meets with an addiction counsellor on a regular basis. He is also followed by his doctor and takes his prescribed medication. Moreover, the adolescent meets with a professional weekly in order to work notably on self- regulation and impulsivity control.

He participates well in those sessions. The adolescent is still impulsive, but overall his behaviour has improved. [ 7 ] The youth and his father have a very good relationship. The youth enjoys outings at his father. He also appreciates contacts with his paternal grandparents, with whom he has a significant bound. The father cooperates with professionals and has improved his parenting and communication skills. [ 8 ] The relationship between the adolescent and his mother is more challenging. They both enjoy seeing each other for short visits. However, the youth is reluctant to longer contacts with his mother.

He feels she exaggerates things or situation and forces him to do things he does not want to do. Sometimes, he refuses to go to his mother’s and would rather remain at the rehabilitation centre. Work is required to rebuild a healthy relationship between mother and son.

[ 9 ] Unfortunately, the mother does not receive help from the DYP. The youth protection worker admits to meeting the mother only once since the last hearing, for the revision in November. One call also takes place, in November. The Court has to conclude that the mother does not benefit from aid, counsel and assistance from the DYP, contrary to the provisions of the youth protection act and to the judgment rendered on August 3, 2016. The mother has a follow-up of her own with another worker, but the DYP did not contact that professional. [ 10 ] That situation is unacceptable and must change.

The Court will therefore order specifically that follow-up meetings take place with the mother every other week. [ 11 ] Nevertheless, the Court cannot foresee, for the time being, entrusting the youth to his mother. It is very unlikely that it would work out, given the adolescent’s strong desire to live with his father and the strained relationship he shares with his mother. [ 12 ] The father is aware of the importance of contacts between the youth and his mother.

The relationship between parents has somehow improved and the father does not hinder his son to see the mother, to the contrary. [ 13 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security or development of the youth are still in danger. The recommended measures meet the youth’s interest, despite the lack of help provided to the mother. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application of revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on August 3, 2016; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to his father; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents benefit from an external educator to learn coping and communications skills; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent participate in addiction counselling; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent continue to have visits with his mother, including overnights, as agreed between the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents actively participate in the application of the measured ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the adolescent and his family until February 28, 2018, including meetings with the mother at least twice a month; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the director of youth protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the petitioner Me Alexis Deschênes for the adolescent Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father

Date of hearing: February 1, 2017