2017 QCCQ 5766, 2017 QCCQ 5766

Protection de la jeunesse — 172475 2017 QCCQ 5766 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-030208-151 Date: January 10, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2000 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 10, 2017, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on October 20, 2015, whereby the now sixteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months with a possible reintegration to his family’s care after three months, with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for extension dated October 17, 2016, are as follows: 3.1. the adolescent remained in the group home until in or around April 20, 2016; 3.2. in the group home, the adolescent continued to exhibit certain behavioural difficulties, however progress was noted; 3.3. the adolescent gradually reintegrated into the mother’s care; 3.4. since his return home, the adolescent has exhibited behavioural difficulties namely due to his oppositional attitude, his frequent messiness (eating, room), his refusal to follow house rules as to bedtime and his refusal to comply with consequences imposed by the mother; 3.5. the adolescent continues to receive services from the delegate, the educator and from the psychologist at school; 3.6. a referral has been made through the CLSC for the adolescent to receive additional psychological services to address his OCD and Oppositional Defiance Disorder; 3.7. over the summer 2016, the adolescent’s behaviours became extremely challenging for the mother however there is hope that the adolescent’s behaviours will stabilize with the start of the new school year; 3.8. the father has continued to have contacts with the adolescent; 3.9. given the ongoing behavioural issues, it is necessary for the Director to extend it’s intervention to support the adolescent and his family (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

[ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until he reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2018. [ 5 ] Both parents, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Benoit, admitted most of the alleged facts and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-6 and D-7 as evidence: D-6: Court Report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated September 14, 2016; D-7: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1], dated December 28, 2016. [ 8 ] In

summary, the parties acknowledge that the adolescent’s return to his mother’s care proved to be too difficult and that he still needs the structure and support of a rehabilitation centre. [ 9 ] Following his return to his mother’s care, the adolescent received various support services and ongoing therapy: This worker tried to get a replacement psychiatrist specialized in OCD and oppositional defiant disorder and applied to the [Foundation A] for funding for a private therapist in the meantime. Ms.

A found an appropriate therapist and X began meeting her at The Emotional Health CBT (cognitive behavior therapy) Clinic, located at McGill University Health Centre. The family was on the waitlist at the CLSC and had already made good use of DYP and Ami Quebec support services. X met with psychologist, Ms. Lisa-Marie Sauve a total of four sessions between October 19 and November 30, 2016, and the costs (total of $490) have been approved for reimbursement to the mother by the [Foundation A]. The effect of these sessions has helped X calm some aspects of his OCD, and the therapy work is being continued by Dr.

Kronick of the CLSC Cavendish since she took on the case on December 1, 2016 [2] (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). However, his behavior proved to be unmanageable at home, with intense conflicts escalating with his siblings as well as his mother. [ 10 ] His provisional compulsory placement was ordered on December 5, 2016, following a family crisis on November 30, 2016. [ 11 ] Since then, his situation has slowly improved: Since his arrival at [Group Home A], he has settled in well.

He visits his parents in alternating weekends, but still exhibits difficult behavior such as verbally insulting his mother and siblings, refusing to go to bed at night, and making a mess. This behavior makes it difficult for his parents to consistently take him overnight, and the consequence is sometimes that he can only visit during the day, not overnight.

X and both parents are in agreement with long term placement and hoping that he can remain in [Group Home A]. [3] [ 12 ] Both parents recognize their son’s efforts, remain committed to maintaining a very close bond with him and hope that he will spend more and more time at home as his behavior improves. [ 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.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain in danger 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: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his parents be determined by consent amongst the parties; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent respect the house rules and refrain from being verbally or physically aggressive towards his siblings and parents; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent continue to receive support services for his mental health and that the family follow recommendations made by his treating professionals; [ 20 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent take his medication as prescribed; [ 21 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to receive and engage in support services in order to learn more effective parenting skills regarding their son’s difficulties; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain relevant information from the professionals involved with the family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family;

[ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE until he reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2018. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the adolescent TD/vl