2012 QCCQ 8761, 2012 QCCQ 8761

Protection de la jeunesse — 122479 2012 QCCQ 8761 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001180-097 DATE: March 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SOCIAL WORKER 1, Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Youth -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the extension of a decision rendered by Roy J. on August 16, 2011, concerning X, born […] , 1998. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and adolescent are present and represented by their respective lawyers.

The father is absent but represented by his lawyer. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On April 28, 2009, Lemoine J. declared the security and development of X in danger mainly due to the parents' heavy drinking and the father's violent behaviour. The youth along with his siblings were entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 4 ] Following that first Court order, four different Court orders each reviewing and extending the previous one entrusted X to a foster family. The mother had yet to make positive changes in her life. The father was and his still serving a three years and a half jail term in a penitentiary.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that on May 11, 2011, Gagnon J. stated that the parents were in no better position to recover their parental responsibilities. Accordingly, she ordered that a valid life plan be clarified for X as it was overdue. The youth was then entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 5 ] However, a few months later the youth started showing strong opposition in class and in his foster family.

Accordingly, Roy J. reviewed Gagnon's J. order and ordered the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of six months. [ 6 ] At the beginning of his placement, the adolescent was placed at centre A. His stay there was difficult as he overreacted when provoked and showed violence towards the educators as well as towards himself. Within a three-week period, the adolescent tried to commit suicide on three different occasions. Considering his self-destructive behaviour, the staff at the centre A became overwhelmed. It was then decided to transfer the adolescent to an intensive supervision unit.

Afterwards, X was transferred to the C unit of the D reception center in B. [ 7 ] At first, the adolescent continued his negative behaviours such as not respecting rules and acting in a violent matter towards staff members. Moreover, while in a transition room the youth tried to strangle himself which was in fact the last major self-destructive behaviour noted during his stay at the center.

[ 8 ] In time, X's behaviour improved. He showed less resistance towards the unit staff members. The approach consisted in teaching the youth to express himself in a non-violent manner.

After much consistency and positive enforcement on part of the educators, the adolescent became more sociable, developing a passion for stone carving and diving lessons. [ 9 ] In light of the youth's high level of anxiety, a psychological assessment was requested in order to have a better understanding of the youth's personality and emotional functioning. [ 10 ] The psychologist Afroditi Vahaviolos is of the opinion that the youth suffers from symptoms of depression and anxiety.

The pain and suffering caused by his family situation has led to attachment issues and impulsivity, which can lead to a substance abuse problem. In light of his clinical impressions the psychologist makes four recommendations: 1- X would benefit from individual art therapy. This form of treatment would be more conducive for this young boy as it can provide him the opportunity to symbolically express his emotions. 2- In the short term, X would benefit from a highly structured environment, which would provide consistency and consequences and help him make healthy decisions throughout his life.

In the long term, it would be beneficial for him to be placed in an A home with an understanding of attachment needs. 3- X be followed by a social worker with which the focus of their relationship would be to help X to eventually reintegrate in a safe and structured family and community. It would also be important for X to obtain a good understanding for the reasons of placement and the separation with his siblings. Transparency is necessary, as it will help foster a relationship of trust.

Knowledge of length of placement and expectations should be made clear. 4- It would be important that X to continue to attend school to develop the social and academic skills to integrate in society. X would benefit from receiving help identifying her interests and setting goals for himself. [ 11 ] Due to the closing of the C boys unit, the youth was transferred back to centre A at the beginning of January 2012. Apparently, the centre A now has better trained staff and more programs.

Nevertheless, this was a disappointment to X who enjoyed his stay in city B near his father who is presently staying in a halfway house in the same city. [ 12 ] The applicant states in the revision report that since X's return centre A " he is so far reproducing the same behaviour he had when he changed center in the past ." [ 13 ] Pertaining to the mother, her situation has improved. She completed a treatment program for her alcohol addiction. Afterwards, she maintained her sobriety for a month and a half and admitted having a few drinks on occasion after that period.

She also found employment as an elder caregiver. Except for his visits during the holidays, the mother has had no contact with her son during his placement. It is reported by the C unit staff that X harbours anger and sadness towards his mother. [ 14 ] As for the father, he is a significant parental figure to his son. He his presently living in a halfway house in city B and should be released in December 2012. He visits his son on a weekly basis and spends quality time with him. [ 15 ] Considering the above-mentioned evidence, the Court is convinced that the security and development of X are still in danger.

APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 16 ] The Director of Youth protection asks for an extension of the placement in a rehabilitation center for a period of six months. The youth and his mother want to reunite immediately. The father also wants his son to be entrusted to the mother as of today. [ 17 ] The evidence tendered convinces the Court that X still needs a structured environment. Although the youth's behaviour improved while he was staying at the C center, the evidence shows he has somewhat regressed since his return at centre A.

The applicant nevertheless feels that this center is now better equipped than before to handle X's situation. This seems difficult to believe considering the fact that several incidents of misbehaviour on part of the youth were noticed since his return in centre A. [ 18 ] The content of the psychological assessment is dense. It indicates that the youth has an inability to regulate his emotions and is at great risk of hurting himself as well as developing serious mental health issues.

The evidence further reveals that it is far from certain that the psychologist's recommendation can be put in place in regards of art therapy or a regular psychological follow-up. [ 19 ] X's needs are great as his psychological state remains fragile. The Director of Youth Protection must contemplate X's transfer in a facility able to answer his special needs.

The Court believes it would be a shame and a breach of the youth's rights to have the means to obtain a psychological assessment, but no resources to apply the recommendations laid out in the said assessment. [ 20 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born […], 1998, remain endangered; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center for a period of six months; [ 24 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation center able to provide the specialized services he needs; [ 25 ] ORDERS that X be provided with the necessary health services, more particularly a regular psychological follow-up pertaining to his unsolved anger and sadness issues;

[ 26 ] ORDERS that contacts between the siblings and other significant family members be favoured; [ 27 ] ORDERS that contacts between the parents and X be maintained and supervised by the D.Y.P. in terms of frequency and modalities; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the parents for a period of six months; [ 29 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid E Lawyer for the youth M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother M e Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: February 14, 2012