2018 QCCQ 13601, 2018 QCCQ 13601

Protection de la jeunesse — 184155 2018 QCCQ 13601 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 33254-178 Date: May 17, 2018 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 May 17, 2018, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , an eleven year-old child, based on his serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated November 9, 2017 are as follows: 3.1. the child resides with his mother and her partner C, and his two half-siblings, Y (age twelve) and « (age two); 3.2. the child has been diagnosed with ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, anxiety disorder, attachment disorder, speech and language delays, and difficulties with his motor and visual capacity; 3.3. the child demonstrates behavioural problems that seriously and repeatedly undermine his physical and psychological integrity; 3.4. on a regular basis, the child spits, swears, screams, threatens, bites and has tantrums; 3.5. the parents and Mr.

C have historically had difficulty managing the child’s behavior; 3.6. from April 2015 to January 2017, the child was placed in a group home according to Agreements on Voluntary Measures due to the parents’ difficulties in managing the child’s problematic behaviours; 3.7. during that time, the mother actively participated in various therapies and programs that were offered to attempt to deal with the child’s ongoing behavioural issues; 3.8. the child’s behavior improved to a certain degree and in January 2017, he was reintegrated to the care of his mother with the services of an educator; 3.9. in July 2017, the voluntary intervention terminated;

3.10. soon after, the situation began to deteriorate; 3.11. in July 2017, the child visited his father but following a crisis during the visit, the father stated that he was no longer able to continue seeing the child; 3.12. in September 2017, the mother requested placement for the child given that he was being aggressive with her and with his siblings; 3.13. services were offered through the CAFÉ program at the CLSC A to maintain the child at home, but difficulties persisted; 3.14. on October 9, 2017, while the child’s behavior was out of control, he bit his mother, and she retaliated by biting him back; 3.15. the mother regretted the biting incident and stated that she was overwhelmed by the child’s ongoing behavioural issues; 3.16. on October 27, 2017, with the agreement of the parents, the child was returned to rehabilitation centre placement; 3.17. the mother has maintained contact and the father has resumed contact since the child’s placement; 3.18. ongoing placement in a rehabilitation centre is required (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The hearing began on January 17, 2018.

At that time, the parties acknowledged the child’s serious behavioral disturbances and also agreed on the best possible solution for the child under the circumstances: Both parents recognize that they do not have to capacity to provide X with what he requires to maintain him in their care. The parents recognize that a placement in a group home short term was needed to stabilize X’s behavior but would not be in his best interest in the long term. The parents are proposing that X be entrusted to the care of his paternal grandparents who have been supportive, consistent, and aware of his challenging behavior.

They believe that entrustment into their care would give X the sense of family that he needs and desires while maintaining a close relationship with them. [2] [ 5 ] The Court ordered that the child be entrusted to his paternal grandparents on an interim basis and the hearing was continued on May 17, 2018. [ 6 ] The Director then recommended that the child remain entrusted to his paternal grandparents with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 7 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the application and consented to all the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The father, who also chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 9 ] Me James, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [social worker 1], dated January 11, 2018; D-2: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated May 15, 2018; D-3: Copy of the child’s birth certificate. [ 11 ] In

summary, the child’s challenging behavior is admitted and the trial period in his grandparents’ care has been extremely positive: There has been a remarkable improvement in X’s overall functioning while in the care of his grandparents. X has been observed as being calm and happy and has expressed feeling a sense of belonging. Mr. E and Ms.

D continue to provide X with a structured, predictable living environment coupled with patience, warmth and affection. [3] [ 12 ] Noticeable improvements have been confirmed by his medical team, as well as his teachers: In March 2018, a meeting took place at the Douglas Institute regarding X’s medication and on-going therapy. As result of his overall improvement and continued progress since being in the care of his grandparents, it was decided that his medication would not be increased and that individual counselling was not indicated.

In fact, it was mentioned that the best therapy for X right now would be for his situation to remain stable (with his grandparents).

An updated Neuro-Psychological Evaluation is being requested in order to assess X’s present functioning and to identify how best to further meet his needs. [4] […] X continues to attend Centre Academic Fournier and reports indicate that he has made significant progress behaviorally, thus facilitating him to focus more on his academics. [5] [ 13 ] The child’s parents confirm his progress and approve of his continued entrustment to his grandparents’ care, and the evidence clearly shows that they are doing a remarkable job.

[ 14 ] The family does not have any issues arranging contacts between the child and each of his parents who are both strongly encouraged to remain as present and involved as possible in their child’s life. [ 15 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under

section 38 (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his paternal grandparents, E and D, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that they are being assessed to become a Proximity Foster Home; [ 19 ] ORDERS that an educator continue to work with the grandparents and the child for as long as deemed necessary; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is being followed at the Douglas Hospital and will benefit from an updated neuropsychological evaluation to make sure that his needs are being met; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that a dental appointment will be scheduled for him shortly; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by consent between the parties; [ 23 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents be as consistent and predictable in their contacts with the child as possible; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on May 31, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Luce James Attorney for the child TD/vl