2018 QCCQ 19454, 2018 QCCQ 19454

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810766 2018 QCCQ 19454 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000840-188 DATE: October 29, 2018 (written judgment rendered on December 5, 2018) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to extend a decision rendered on January 31, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development of X in danger and ordered that he remain with his parents until October 31, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director submits that the security and the development of X continue to be in danger and recommends that he stay with the parents with a follow-up from Youth Protection services. [ 3 ] The father is currently detained and did not ask to come to the court hearing but he is represented. His lawyer asks to postpone and to fix the hearing after his release from jail in February 2019. [ 4 ] The mother is absent but represented.

She also asks to postpone the hearing because she wishes the father be present. She considers he is responsible for the family situation so she would like he could hear the evidence. [ 5 ] X who is now 14 years old is absent but represented. He would also have appreciated that the father could be present to hear the evidence but wishes to proceed because the delay requested for the postponement is too long, according to him. [ 6 ] Considering the parents were duly served and considering the wish and the interest of the adolescent, the Court proceed in the absence of the parents.

Facts [ 7 ] The Director intervened in the life of X and his three siblings because the parents displayed alcohol consumption and violent behaviour problems. X did not attend school regularly. The parents showed good parental capacities when they are sober. They seemed to realize the impact of their situation on the adolescent and expressed to be ready to change their way of life. The extended family is present and very helpful. [ 8 ] On January 31, 2018, Justice Legault declared the security and development of X in danger [1] and entrusted him to his parents.

The Court ordered that services from an external educator be provided to the family and recommend that the parents seek help for their personal issues, the whole until October 31, 2018. [ 9 ] Since the last court order, the collaboration of the parents with the Youth Protection worker was irregular. When they attend the meetings, they participate well but most of the time they don’t show up. [ 10 ] That being said, the mother continues to meet a social worker at the hospital with whom she developed a very good relation. This follow-up is very positive and brings protective aspect to the situation.

[ 11 ] The father did not go to AA meetings even if he manifested the interest to go. The mother asked him to leave the household for one week because of his consumption. To be able to maintain her sobriety, the mother does not accept alcohol consumption at home anymore. [ 12 ] The worker testifies that the mother reduced her consumption since the father is detained, but her collaboration with the worker was better when the father was present. [ 13 ] The hospital offered the opportunity to the parents to attend a family therapy in Region A. The hospital was supposed to assume the travelling expenses.

The parents were very motivated to attend this treatment and completed all the steps to be accepted. They received a positive answer from the treatment centre, and they were supposed to leave during summer 2018. Unfortunately, the parents were informed that the hospital refuses to pay the expenses. The mother was very disappointed and cried a lot because it was important for her to work on her issues as a family, and not to be separated from her boyfriend and her children during the treatment process.

She is less motivated to go to treatment without her children or with only the youngest as offered at the child and mother program at Portage. [ 14 ] X improved his attendance at school since the last order. He plays hockey and win a tournament last spring. The family was very proud of him. He is often involved in fighting with other adolescents. The worker mentions that he is described as a well-mannered teenager who helps a lot at home by doing laundry, cleaning and babysitting.

Analysis [ 15 ] The evidence shows that the mother is really motivated to change her way of life and by doing so, the way of life of her family. She realizes the impact of the parents’ issues on the children. Also, X confirms that he does not like to see the violent relationship of his parents. [ 16 ] The Youth Protection worker does not know why the hospital offered to assume the family therapy and help the parents to be accepted for finally telling them that nothing will be paid. But the Youth Protection worker is aware of how disappointed the mother was.

This situation had a direct impact on her motivation. [ 17 ] The Court, the Director and the Social Services asked the parents to seek help regarding their personal issues because it affects the development and the security of the children. But when they were ready to go to the treatment centre suggested by the hospital, the hospital informs them that it’s not possible anymore. Leaving for a therapy, outside of their community, in another province with all the family members requires a lot of organization and a lot of psychological preparation.

It’s deplorable that the hospital after engaging itself, came back on its decision. The Court is very concerned about the impact of this decision on the parents but more of that on the children. Also, the Court is aware that other people from this community went to this therapy in Region A.

Considering that the Youth Protection worker can’t inform the Court about the reason, the Court will recommend to the Commission to investigate on this specific situation. [ 18 ] That being said, the evidence reveals that the situation of the adolescent is still in danger and the services from the Youth Protection are still necessary.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS this application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004, continue to be in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remains with the parents; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by the Court; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the adolescent; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any form of aggression or violence in the presence of the adolescent; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help concerning their alcohol and personal issues; [ 27 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at the appointments with the professionals, their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid counselling or assistance to the adolescent and the family until August 9, 2019; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate about the reasons why the family was not able to benefit from the therapy in Region A; [ 30 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the adolescent Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: October 29, 2018