r v. A, 2017 QCCQ 16969

Protection de la jeunesse — 177334 2017 QCCQ 16969 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005052-165 DATE: June 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2001 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE DA 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 ] On March 31 , 2016, the Court declares the adolescent X Kosowski in a situation of endangerment in reason of educational neglect, serious behavioural disturbance and school absenteeism.

While maintaining him in his family environment, various protective services are put in place for 9 months. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection applies for the extension of protective measures for 6 months, alleging that the adolescent continues to require accompaniment and support. [ 3 ] The mother consigns her position and consents to the orientation.

The Court proceeds in the absence of the father, as the mother explains that she represents their shared vision of their son’s situation. [ 4 ] The adolescent’s attorney cites a legal mandate and agrees to the conclusions of the application. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] X continues to live with his parents and siblings. [ 7 ] Since the last order, numerous services and interventions are made available to support the adolescent and his family.

The overall conclusion is that there are little durable changes which occur in the situation of endangerment, as X’ anxiety and social phobia continue to overwhelm his dynamic and impede his development. [ 8 ] Although since March 2015 there are many attempts to have X meet with a psychiatrist for assessment, his refusal is ongoing. The accompaniment of social services also has little impact before X’ resistance. [ 9 ] His parents are collaborative, but the mother continues an overprotective dynamic.

The parents want their son to receive help to overcome his difficulties yet they remain unable to ensure him consistent structure and guide him through the process towards normalizing his functioning. [ 10 ] Notwithstanding that the last judgment orders that X attend school assiduously, such is not the case. In September 2016, an agreement intervenes with the school board so that X receive tutoring (5 hours a week).

His participation is uneven and it is not possible to normalize his school attendance. [ 11 ] At the first hearing on the application in March 2017, the Court expresses concerns as to the adolescent’s situation, questioning

whether it is possible to envision its evolution while maintaining him in his family environment. As a new appointment is scheduled for his psychiatric assessment and the mother testifies that her son shows renewed intent to participate, the Court continues the hearing to a further date. [ 12 ] X finally meets with the psychiatrist in May. He collaborates well and is able to open up concerning his situation.

Although his mother cites school intimidation as the reason justifying her son’s poor school attendance in the last two years, X denies that such is the case to the psychiatrist. [ 13 ] He further affirms that his anxiety and panic attacks are less present in the last months. Although he recognizing having difficulty adapting to change and new situations, he says he can do so more easily if he is aware of them in advance. [ 14 ] The evaluation concludes that X’ social phobia is currently in check considering that he actively avoids interactions outside his comfort zone.

Recommendations ensue that there be a gradual exposure to new social situations, inciting him to develop strategies to manage his stress and reduce his resistance to change. This process should be a

preamble to his return to school. As well, psychiatric services should remain in place to accompany the adolescent and to further evaluate the reasons for his difficulties, including the possibility of autism spectrum disorder. [ 15 ] An educator is put in place to accompany X and his family in the intervention plan. X is acclimatizing to this presence at the present time. [ 16 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court endorses the Director’s recommendations. [ 17 ] X suffers from debilitating social anxiety which has impeded his development for far too long and this, on all levels.

He continues to require the establishment of a comprehensive structure to accompany him in dealing with his issues. Since the last order, little has been able to be put in place in reason of X’ continued resistance and a family dynamic which is not sufficiently equipped to deal with his fragilities. [ 18 ] A progressive plan is in place, which is destined to evolve X’ situation but which requires active participation of all the parties.

X and his parents state their intent to work towards the end of the situation of endangerment, but it remains to see if this intent can translate into durable change and this, seeing the extent of the challenges in play. [ 19 ] The extension of the protective measures is in the adolescent’s best interests, but continued stagnation in the next period will necessarily provoke the consideration of alternate measures to reach the objectives of the law. [ 20 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain with his family; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which his security or development are in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures, namely the continuation of the process towards normalizing the adolescent’s school situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive certain health care and health services, namely that he continue to participate in the evaluation of his situation with Santé mentale jeunesse and that he further follow their recommendations; [ 27 ] TAKES ACT that the adolescent’s next appointment with his psychiatrist is scheduled on August 21, 2017, in view of pursuing the evaluation process; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the services of an educator be provided to the adolescent and his family; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 30 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of Montérégie for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent

Date of hearing: March 13 and June 27, 2017