2011 QCCQ 6615, 2011 QCCQ 6615

Protection de la jeunesse — 111031 2011 QCCQ 6615 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-023007-107 Date: February 8, 2011 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […] , 1994 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 8, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on March 5, 2010, whereby the now sixteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with a possible reintegration to his father's care after six months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for extension are as follows: 3.1 the adolescent continues to exhibit behavioural issues, more particularly but not restrictively for the following reasons:

a) the adolescent refuses to adhere to the father's house rules;

b) the adolescent continues to associate with negative peers;

c) the adolescent continues to consume marijuana;

d) at times, the adolescent has intimidated and bullied his peers;

e) the adolescent has been physically aggressive towards his peers;

f) the adolescent has been defiant, threatening and sexually intimidating towards certain rehabilitation center staff members;

g) on at least two (2) known occasions, the adolescent ran away and his whereabouts were unknown;

h) the adolescent has had difficulties in school and expressed that he does not want to attend; 3.2 since around March 2010, the adolescent has been participating in Anger Replacement Training (A.R.T.); 3.3 the adolescent had been participating in a Victim Impact Program to combat his bullying behaviours; 3.4 the adolescent had contacts with his mother during two of her visits to city A; said visits were reportedly positive for the adolescent; 3.5 the adolescent has regular contacts with his father, which are positive for the most part; 3.6 the father has expressed his frustration with the adolescent's behaviour, and that he agrees with the continued need for a structured placement of the adolescent (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with a possible reintegration to either of his parents' care, if the situation allows, and that the family benefit from aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, who lives in city B, was not present at the hearing but was duly served with the proceedings and reportedly expressed her consent to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the alleged facts and also consented to the proposed measures.

He is eager for his son to return to his care so long as he respects house rules. [ 7 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Sepinwall, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. However, he specifically denied bullying or being aggressive with his peers. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibit D-1 as evidence: D-1: Court report by [social worker 2], dated December 10, 2010. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the adolescent has begun to make some progress and is described by the manager at [the organism A] as an articulate young man who is beginning to learn to better control his anger. [ 10 ] He sees a psychologist once a week and benefits from regular contact with his father and brothers. [ 11 ] His father reportedly enjoys and appreciates his son's company and primarily objects to his behaviour outside the home. [ 12 ] He remains committed to caring for and supporting his son. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the adolescent's interest. [ 14 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with a possible reintegration to either of his parents' care, if the situation allows; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a psychological evaluation be done and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the adolescent's recent consent to that effect; [ 19 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue to receive individual counselling and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that he is meeting the psychologist, Kees Maas, on a weekly basis; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent submit to random drug testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of his consent to do so; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent refrain from displaying any type of verbal or physical violence; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Adelia FERREIRA / AF4558 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard SEPINWALL / AS1269 Attorney for the adolescent Judgment rendered verbally on February 8, 2011 . TD/md