2014 QCCQ 13503, 2014 QCCQ 13503

Protection de la jeunesse — 141582 2014 QCCQ 13503 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] N°: 525-41-021046-081 DATE: January 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres AppliCant - and - X Born on […], 1997 - and - E Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 16, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order rendered October 10, 2012, entrusting the adolescent to a confidential foster home for a period of nine months along with other measures and a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent has remained in the same foster home with his sibling B; • The adolescent continues to be frequently late and absent from school; • In November 2012, the adolescent underwent a psychological assessment and it was concluded, namely, that he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, that his difficulties are a result of a lack of boundaries, a lack of appropriate intervention for his weaknesses and chronic school absenteeism; • On December 5, 2012, the adolescent was suspended from school until December 20, 2012, due to a physical altercation that he had with a peer on that day; • As for the visits, the mother was allowed to have unsupervised weekend contacts with the adolescent until the end of November 2012; • On November 28, 2012, a signalement was received concerning the mother being physically abusive to the adolescent and his siblings; • On December 6, 2012, Y and Z reported that the mother uses foul language and is physically abusive to them and their siblings, except for A, when they misbehave and that it has happened since they were placed; • On December 6, 2012, Z reported that during a weekend visit, the mother grabbed B by the collar of his shirt and hit him repeatedly because he hurt D; • D confirmed that the mother hit B a lot after B had hit him in the stomach;

• X, C, B and the mother deny that the mother is physically or verbally abusive to her children; • Since the evaluation of the signalement was completed, the visits between the adolescent and the mother are supervised at organization A; • Concerns exist however, that the adolescent has unauthorized contacts with the mother; • In January 2013, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment which did not provide any explanation for the mother’s inability to integrate the parenting strategies provided by the Director of Youth Protection over the years; • The mother continues not to be transparent nor does she cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] The case of the adolescent and that of his siblings proceeded on October 2, 3 and November 20, 2013, and January 16, 2014. [ 5 ] In October 2013, the Director of Youth Protection was recommending that the adolescent be entrusted to his mother’s care along with other measures and that a social follow-up be provided to the adolescent and his family until his age of majority, February 6, 2015. [ 6 ] At the hearing of October 3, 2013, the adolescent presented a motion under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act, asking to be entrusted to his mother’s care until the next Court date. The Court denied the motion as the evidence provided was to the effect that the mother was not collaborating with DYP.

Furthermore, the adolescent's psychological evaluation concluded that he required boundaries and was unable to self discipline. [ 7 ] At the hearing of November 20, 2013, the Director of Youth Protection changed his recommendations and was asking for the adolescent to be entrusted to foster care until his age of majority with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 8 ] However, on December 16, 2013, the Director of Youth Protection filed a motion for provisional measures under

section 79 of the Youth Protection Act , asking that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, due to his behavioural difficulties. The motion was granted on December 17, 2013, and the adolescent was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until the hearing of January 16, 2014.

The adolescent was entrusted to A group home. [ 9 ] At the hearing of January 16, 2014, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be maintained in a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months with integration into a confidential foster home during this period and that he remain in foster care until his age of majority. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 10 ] The mother admits certain facts alleged in the motion, but contests the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection.

The mother is asking for X to be entrusted to her care. [ 11 ] The mother testifies that she moved back to town A on October 18, 2013, in order for X to go to school. The mother states that when her children were in her care their behaviour was adequate and that they respected their curfew. Mother says that she collaborates with DYP and that her apartment is adequate to receive her children. She adds that she receives her son every weekend and that the visits go well. [ 12 ] The adolescent admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion. He testifies that he wishes to return to his mother’s care.

If he cannot be returned to his mother’s care, he wishes to integrate a foster home. The adolescent has recently started attending an adult education program, part time in the afternoons. [ 13 ] The psychological assessment of the adolescent was conducted by Diane McLean, psychologist, and the report is dated November 30, 2012. The psychologist notes that X entered A Academy with at least a two years delay in Math and English and a 4 year delays in French.

His academic delays were perceived to be as a result of lack of attendance and inattention. [ 14 ] The psychologist concludes that the adolescent’s profile is one of untreated Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Furthermore, that he has a history of difficulty with self regulation, distractibility and school absence. According to the psychologist, X's difficulties are as a result of lack of boundaries, appropriate intervention for his weaknesses and chronic school absence.

The psychologist made the following recommendations: Although X depicts a future with laudable goals he is on pathway to school drop out. He lacks executive functioning and the ability to sustain effort. Regular school attendance as well as intervention for his attention deficit will be necessary for success. • A psycho educational assessment to determine X’s learning profile and to determine if, in addition to attention deficit, he experiences learning disabilities, would be helpful. • X requires consistent boundaries in terms of curfews and school atten-dance.

He is unable to self discipline and requires external control. • X would benefit from a consultation with a physician regarding the possibility of pharmacological intervention for his attention deficit. If it were to be recommended it would be important to determine that X is not involved in using substances. [ 15 ] The mother's psychiatric evaluation was conducted by doctor Michel Gil, psychiatrist, in January 2013. [ 16 ] The psychiatrist mentions that the mother arrived on time, that orientation and sensorial elements are preserved and that no disassociative elements were observed .

The mother displays a certain distractibility, compatible with her diagnosis of ADHD. The mother presents no suicidal ideations or ideas of violence. However, social and practical judgement seems affected by some immaturity and self- criticism is partial. The mother has had seven children and many voluntary termination of pregnancies with a number of fathers. She basically raised her children on her own.

[ 17 ] The psychiatrist established the following diagnosis: Axe I : Trouble déficitaire de l’attention avec hyperactivité vraisemblablement responsable d’une

partie de son hyperactivité et quelques difficultés organisationnelles (retards, un certain éparpillement et un certain degré d’impulsivité); on retrouve également des antécédents de dyslexie. Axe II : au niveau de la personnalité, on retrouve quelques traits de personnalité du groupe B avec expression émotionnelle intense, quelques aspects carentiels et impulsivité. Axe III : non contributif. Axe IV : . monoparentalité, sept enfants; . placement récent des enfants; . interactions difficiles avec les services de protection de la jeunesse; . réticence historique pour les traitements médicaux.

Axe V : ÉGF à 70. [ 18 ] The psychiatrist concludes that the mother does not present any pathologies that could justify a reference or entrustment to a specialised setting. He recommends that a medication be tried for her ADHD, in order to increase her efficiency and enhance her organisational skills. However, the mother refuses to take medication and this type of treatment would not compensate for all of her emotional and relationship difficulties. [ 19 ] The Court heard a numbers of witnesses during the four days of hearing.

The Court also read the reports and addendums filed by Director of Youth Protection as proof of the adolescent’s situation. [ 20 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s situation has changed very little since the last Court order, October 10, 2012. The family has received services from DYP since 2008 and concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance, physical abuse and the mother’s instability.

Although the mother has said, on numerous occasions, that she is willing to collaborate with DYP, she continues to miss meetings with the youth workers and not to collaborate in a transparent manner. [ 21 ] The mother is currently living in town B in a four and half room apartment with her spouse, F, and her mother. She is currently living on welfare and has not worked since March 2013 when she quit her job at Company A.

The mother states that she is currently looking for employment and wants to complete her hotel reception program. [ 22 ] X is now 17 and requires consistent boundaries, which his mother is not in a position to provide. He is not attending school and has no goals for his future.

The Director will be assigning him a Support Link Educator to work with him in order to help him work towards independent living. [ 23 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be maintained in a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months with integration to a foster home during this period and to be maintained in foster care until his age of majority. [ 24 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the adolescent, X; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months, with integration to a foster home when the situation allows and that he remain in foster care until his age of majority, […], 2015; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the foster home placement remain confidential to the mother; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the foster home be a structured foster home with two parents and STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that B take be placed in the same foster home; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after discussion with the mother and RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue to visit his mother on weekends; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that a general

schedule of contacts between the adolescent and his mother be established; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care services required by his situation, including a psycho educational assessment

and that the recommendations of the psycho educational assessment and of the adolescent’s psychological assessment be followed; [ 33 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all forms of physical and verbal violence towards the adolescent, including threat of physical harm; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the adolescent undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP and that if test’s results remain positive, that he undergo an assessment; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with all of the services providers working with the family; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent participate in the A Program; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue his adult education program; [ 38 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family until his age of majority, […], 2015; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed April 25, 2014 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maïa Sureau Counsel for the adolescent Me Richard Benoit Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: October 2 and 3, 2013, November 20, 2013, January 16, 2014