2016 QCCQ 19615, 2016 QCCQ 19615

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610319 2016 QCCQ 19615 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029715-158 Date: December 12, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2005 [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 December 12, 2016, 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 May 31, 2016, whereby the now eleven year-old child, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation center, with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for extension dated October 6, 2016, are as follows: 3.1. the child continued to demonstrate behavioural problems until the end of the school year, both at home and at school; 3.2. the child attended two (2) sessions at summer camp, but was returned to the group home on two (2) occasions due to his negative behavior; 3.3. in August 2016, the child began overnight visits to the father, which have gone well; 3.4. in September 2016, the child began overnight visits with the mother, which also are progressing well; 3.5. a referral was made for the Jewish General Hospital Day Treatment Program but it has not yet been determined whether the child is accepted or not; 3.6. in September 2016, the child began art therapy; 3.7. despite the lack of external services, the child has benefitted from the structure and ongoing intervention at the group home, and an attempt to reintegration to the mother is warranted; 3.8. ongoing intervention is required to support an integration to the mother (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and given positive developments since the date of the motion, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year [ 5 ] The parents, who both chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted all the alleged facts and consented to

the proposed measures. [ 6 ] Me Shapiro Knight, who represented the child, also admitted the alleged facts and approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibit D-7 as evidence: D-7: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated December 2, 2016. [ 8 ] In

summary, the mother has settled into her new apartment and services are being offered to help the family: Art therapy with Ms. [Social Worker 2] began at [...] on September 21, 2016 and this writer brought him from [Group Home A] to the session and back again for the first couple weeks, and then Ms. A took over the duty from then on. X is generally enjoying the sessions, as he has a great interest in drawing (he’s very talented!) and he understands the need for counselling. Dr. Guzder, from the Day Treatment Program at the Jewish General Hospital called Ms.

A to invite the family for an intake meeting on November 8, 2016, as there was now an opening in their program. [2] [ 9 ] The child is attending the Day Treatment Program four days a week and school one day a week and is expected to decrease his attendance at the Day Program and increase his attendance at school as he progresses. [ 10 ] He needs to learn to control his aggression.

However, he is described as “extremely bright”. [ 11 ] The mother is also seeking services to help herself and an educator will be working with the family to support X’s return to his family environment. [ 12 ] 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 child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the parents follow the recommendations in the child’s psychiatric assessment, more particularly ensure that the child continue to benefit from individual therapy TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is seeing a psychologist once a week and ORDERS that he continue to do so for as long as necessary; [ 17 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek therapeutic and supportive services in the community TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother has just received a call and expects that services should be offered shortly; [ 18 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother has agreed to participate in a parental capacity assessment and RECOMMENDS that she follow any recommendations that may be made; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that an educator is working with the family and is expected to continue to do so for the duration of the order; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Heidi Lechter Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the child TD/vl