2016 QCCQ 5307, 2016 QCCQ 5307

Protection de la jeunesse — 161705 2016 QCCQ 5307 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] N° : 525-41-023684-103 DATE : February 24, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on […], 2000 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on February 24 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision of a decision rendered on December 2 nd , 2015 by Honourable Gaétan Zonato.

The Director is asking that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for one year. [ 3 ] Although the mother denies or ignores essentially all the important facts alleged in support of the motion for revision, she agrees with the recommendations that her son be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

She is not in agreement with the one year period suggested by the Director but agrees with a period of six months. [ 4 ] The father admits certain facts (adolescent expelled from school, rude and disrespectful towards the youth protection worker) and believes his son's behaviours require placement in a rehabilitation centre. He agrees with the recommendations of the Director of a period of six months. [ 5 ] The adolescent admits that he has been expelled from school fifteen days after the last decision was rendered. He admits to being generally rude and disrespectful towards the youth protection worker.

He denies the concerns of the Director pertaining to his affiliation with gang members as well as the reasons why he has been expelled from school. Nonetheless, he agrees to remain in placement in a

rehabilitation centre and requests that his placement be limited to a period of six months. CONTEXT [ 6 ] Following the last decision rendered, it is reported that the adolescent has been absent from school without valid reasons. In addition, on December 17 th , 2015, the youth is expelled from school. [ 7 ] Although the mother seems to minimize the conduct of her son, she has described behaviour problems her son has exhibited since the last court order.

He has been disrespectful of her authority, has hit his sister on a number of occasions and has exercised, to some extent, control over her use of her cell phone. [ 8 ] Following the deterioration of the adolescent's situation, the Director seized Court and requested the provisional compulsory foster care of the adolescent. Said decision was rendered on December 23 rd , 2015. [ 9 ] A few hours after he was brought to the rehabilitation centre, the youth left the premises without permission. It is only on January 24 that the adolescent returned to the mother's home.

The mother claims that she was unaware of his whereabouts during this one-month period but that her son regularly contacted her to let her know that he was o.k.. [ 10 ] In addition, the youth is facing charges under Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for incidents that would have taken place during his period of absence from the rehabilitation centre. [ 11 ] The worker testifies to the lengthy involvement of the Director in the life of the adolescent and his mother.

Different interventions and services have been provided to the family. [ 12 ] As mentioned by Judge Zonato in his last decision, placement in a rehabilitation centre under the Youth Protection Act was not necessarily excluded even if the youth was entrusted to his mother's care in December 2015. [ 13 ] All parties agree with the necessity that the youth receive services from the rehabilitation centre.

Although mother and son would have preferred that the youth be entrusted only for a period of six months, the evidence reveals that in all likelihood, the goals set by the Director will not be achieved within such a short period of time. [ 14 ] All parties were reminded that, should the situation evolve positively sooner than expected, the Court order could be revised accordingly. [ 15 ] The Director has established the need for the revision of the court order and the measures recommended meet the needs of the adolescent and are in his best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one (1) year; [ 18 ] ORDERS the adolescent and both parents to collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection and meet the Director when requested to do so; [ 19 ] ORDERS the adolescent to attend school; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS to the mother to follow through and collaborate with any other professionals involved; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the adolescent Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : February 24 th , 2016