r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 21065

Protection de la jeunesse — 155472 2015 QCCQ 21065 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004935-154 760-41-004469-139 DATE: November 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2007 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTRES Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents a motion for revision and extension of a Court decision rendered on November 4, 2014 concerning the child X.

In virtue of this preceding decision, the Court prolongs the application of various protective measures for one year, while maintaining the child in the care of his mother. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the child’s increasingly complex behavioural issues, in conjunction with the lack of a consistent parental response, justify the pursuit of the intervention for another year.

More specifically, the Director seeks an order to the effect that the mother ensure that her son’s educational and medical needs are met in that she follow the recommendations put forth by the medical professionals having assessed his situation. [ 3 ] The parents and the child consign their admissions and declare being in agreement with the orientation proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] The Director requests to be authorized to exchange pertinent information with the treating professionals working with the family.

Although the mother agrees to this stipulation, she asks that such exchanges occur in her presence. The parties agree to such. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] The child resides with his mother. The parents maintain a good relationship and are able to agree to the father’s contacts. The caseworker is kept apprised of these contacts and this, considering the need to monitor the situation in view of the father’s criminal history. [ 7 ] X presents numerous behavioural and mental health issues which impede his functioning and development on all levels.

This situation is exacerbated by his frequent and unstructured access to various entertainment mediums offering content inappropriate for his age or maturity (violence). [ 8 ] The following behaviours persist: ➢ Physical and verbal violence with peers and school officials; ➢ Violent outbursts;

➢ References to guns, knives and military assault weapons; ➢ Inappropriate social interactions. [ 9 ] X’s dysfunctional behaviours do not permit standard schooling. As well, his academics are significantly delayed across multiple domains. He receives home-based tutoring, including presence at the school for one hour per day. X is participating actively in the program. [ 10 ] The mother recognizes that she has little effective authority over her son and that in this context; he has little motivation to change his behaviours.

An educator intervenes with the child and his mother, focusing on the implementation of structure and routine in the home. [ 11 ] Numerous evaluations and referrals occur with the objective of offering services specific to X’s needs. Notwithstanding, the intervention has mitigated results, as the mother oftentimes refuses, resists or fails to follow-through on recommendations. [ 12 ] In February 2015, the child benefits from a psychiatric assessment destined to offer him the services of a day treatment program at the Jewish General Hospital.

This program would offer an educational setting tailored to the child’s specific needs. [ 13 ] The assessment confirms numerous diagnoses on an emotional and developmental level, including: oppositional defiance disorder, possible conduct disorder, parent-child difficulties, parent-child enmeshment, non-verbal learning disorder and computer tv/ overexposure.

It is concluded that although X would eventually benefit from such a program, the severity of his behavioural issues as well as the mother’s lack of determined participation, preclude his admission. [ 14 ] The child also undergoes a psycho-educational assessment which recommends anew that he benefit from a hospital-based day treatment program, while reiterating the previous pre-requisites to the effect that he be able to function in a school setting.

The following objectives are put forth: ➢ Establishment of a structure of rules and consequences; ➢ Maintaining of a family routine; ➢ Educating the mother as to the exercise of her parental authority; ➢ Assessing the presence of a learning disorder in order to develop a tailored learning program for the child; ➢ Offering pro-regulation activities and pastimes; ➢ Encouraging the father’s participation; [ 15 ] Notwithstanding the protective measures put in place, the child’s situation continues to present significant challenges, namely in reason of the complexities of his behaviours and the inability of his family environment to respond to his needs for structure and consistency.

The application of protective measures is still required to accompany the family and ensure that the child’s situation evolve. [ 16 ] After taking into consideration the parties' admissions as well as the documentary evidence, the Court considers that the allegations in the proceeding are proven to its satisfaction and furthermore, give rise to the measures agreed upon by the parties. [ 17 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion for revision and extension of a court decision; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger in reason of serious behavioural difficulties; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the contacts between the child and his father be determined following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother respect the established intervention plan; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child’s educational and medical needs are met, namely his participation in the Lyall Program or Day Treatment Program of the Jewish General Hospital program (if accepted); [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child receives the health services required by his situation namely the respect of the recommendations of the psychiatric evaluation completed by Dr.

A. Wazana as well as the psycho-educational assessments completed by Dr. Yaniv Elharrar; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange pertinent information with the professionals working with the family and this, in the mother’s presence; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family, including the services of an educator, for one year; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the judgment.

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle L'Oranger Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 23, 2015