2019 QCCQ 17810, 2019 QCCQ 17810

Protection de la jeunesse — 196181 2019 QCCQ 17810 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000376-188 DATE: May 23, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant X, born on [...], 2006 Child and A, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection A (the Director) asks the Court to review the decision rendered on November 28, 2018, in the situation of X, born on [...], 2006. He asks that the child remain at the reception centre for a period of one year with specific services for drug and alcohol abuse. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father and the mother are present, assisted by Me Michel Grenier and Me Marie-Josée Ayoub.

The child is represented by Me Antoine Meunier and Me Adelia Ferreira represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] The mother admits most of the allegations and asks for the immediate reintegration of her son with her. [ 4 ] The father ignores the allegations and would like to have contacts with his son. [ 5 ] The child admits only few allegations and wants to return with his mother. [ 6 ] The evidence is completed with an observation report of the key educator at the reception centre, the psychological evaluation of the child done by Mrs. [Social Worker 2], a pedo-psychiatric evaluation done by Dr.

Julie Marchand, reports of many incidents at the reception centre and the revision report. The social worker and the mother testify. [ 7 ] It is proved that the child was involved in several incidents at the reception centre. Since the last judgment, he displayed an aggressive behaviour. He continues to defy authority, to use inappropriate language and gestures. Although there was improvement, he continues to use marijuana.

He cumulates many incidents of assault and threats. [ 8 ] The pedopsychiatrist met X last February 27, and made the following observations: − Trouble d’utilisation des substances (cannabis). − Trouble des conduits. − Possibles symptômes dépressifs induits par le cannabis. [ 9 ] She recommended that X remains in structures setting with services of [Organism A] or therapy. She agreed with the pediatrician and recommended that a neuropsychological evaluation. [ 10 ] The psychologist met the youth and the mother. Socially, the youth is having problems since he attends school.

He received a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and ADHD in 2015.

[ 11 ] He lived with his mother up until his placement. He is not close to his father. The father is known for his substance issues and conjugal violence. The child usually met him in the community when he is not detained. The child’s issues are not totally admitted by the mother. [ 12 ] The psychologist recommends that “X stays in a protected setting where he can get an external control of his behaviours and learn coping skills. It is recommended that X benefit from social skills training and anger management.

It is recommended that specific interventions be done to help X manage his impulsivity, increase his impulse control”. He should attend regular psychological follow-up to help him to develop his empathy, his sense of responsibility and his sense of self-worth, and address his anxiety and depressive symptoms. [ 13 ] The mother does not agree with all those observations. She did not offer good collaboration with the social worker. She mostly referred him to organise and to control the visits of her son at her place.

The mother is unable to control her own emotions and may become easily aggressive even in front of X. The mother did not seek for services for her own personal issues. [ 14 ] She now have a stable place to live and is able to receive her son regularly even if she had difficulties to respect the travel arrangements and the

schedule made for her. She fears for her son because of his suicidal ideas. She wants him to attend treatment centre for his drugs issue. She wants to control the social worker and she reacts to his recommendations. [ 15 ] She declares that she stopped doing cocaine on March 3, 2019, and that she relapsed only once at her birthday. She also tries to drink less. She wants to do it by herself without specialised help.

She does not trust the youth protection system because she was also a beneficiary when she was 12. [ 16 ] The father acknowledges that he was not involved in X’s life but asks now to have contact with him. The youth agrees to have supervised contact. [ 17 ] In analysis of the mother’s situation, the Court considers she is not in position to offer the support, the structures, the counselling needed by X. He requires a lot more specialised services adding his mother’s support. [ 18 ] The mother must learn how to structure X when he visits her and to follow the recommendations of the reception centre’s educator.

She must work with them, not react negatively to their interventions. She must develop good communication with the social worker and be transparent with him. All this should be for X’s benefit. [ 19 ] Considering the evidence, the Court endorses the recommendations made by the social worker.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS his placement in a reception centre for one year; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the child attends a treatment centre for drugs and alcohol abuses; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director to provide the child all the medical services required including a psychological follow-up; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director to supervise the contacts between the child and his parents as for location, duration, frequency and presence of a third party if required; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his parents for one year; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to attend therapies for her personal issues (including anger management); [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to inform and to exchange information with the professionals and the service providers working with the family; [ 30 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the present judgment; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in City A on June 11, 2019 __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Antoine Meunier

Attorney for the youth Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the mother Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 23, 2019