2013 QCCQ 8919, 2013 QCCQ 8919

Protection de la jeunesse — 132088 2013 QCCQ 8919 JG1314 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE [...] LOCALITÉ DE […] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N o : 525-41-026756-130 DATE : 11 février 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE : L’HONORABLE JUGE LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de l'enfant : X né le : […] 1999 [INTERVENANTE 1] , personne autorisée par la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse, La personne déclarante -et- A -et- B, Les parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en vertu de l'article 38 de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse dans laquelle la requérante (DPJ) allègue que la sécurité et le développement de l’adolescent sont compromis pour certains motifs. [ 2 ] En conséquence, la DPJ recommande au Tribunal d’ordonner son hébergement en centre de réadaptation pour une période de neuf (9) mois et d’autoriser sa réintégration auprès de ses grands-parents maternels, si la situation le permet, et ce, après six (6) mois d’hébergement en centre de réadaptation. [ 3 ] La Directrice recommande certaines autres mesures visant à corriger la situation.

État de compromission [ 4 ] L’adolescent a admis les faits portés à sa connaissance et a exprimé son accord avec les recommandations. [ 5 ] Les grands-parents maternels ont obtenu la garde légale de leur petit-fils le 26 septembre 2005. [ 6 ] Les grands-parents assument les responsabilités parentales à l’égard de l’adolescent. [ 7 ] Le grand-père et la grand-mère ont admis tous les faits allégués dans la requête et ils ont exprimé leur accord avec les recommandations. [ 8 ] Le grand-père et la grand-mère ont fait part de leur souci concernant la santé mentale de leur petit-fils.

Ils demandent qu’il puisse bénéficier d’une évaluation psychiatrique. [ 9 ] Leur petit-fils leur a confié qu’il entendait de la musique et des voix, ceci juxtaposé au fait que sa propre mère vit avec des problèmes de santé mentale, il est justifié qu’une telle évaluation se fasse. [ 10 ] M e Bernard Sepinwall, au nom de l’adolescent, a exprimé l’accord de X, de subir une telle évaluation.

[ 11 ] Tenant compte des admissions formulées par l’adolescent, de même que par les grands-parents maternels. [ 12 ] Tenant compte de la preuve documentaire. [ 13 ] Le Tribunal conclut que la sécurité et le développement sont compromis pour ces motifs. [ 14 ] Le Tribunal retient les éléments suivants : - from 2003 to 2005, the child’s situation was known to the Director of Youth Protection and to the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, as it appears from the Honourable Judge Lucie Godin’s judgements, file number: 525-41-013801-030, filed en liasse as Exhibit D-1; - the maternal grandparents have legal custody of the child, as per a Superior Court judgement rendered on September 26 th , 2005, in the file number: 500-04-039650-057, filed as Exhibit D-2; - the child exhibits serious behavioural disturbances, more particularly but not restrictively in that: ¶ the child has been consuming marijuana and alcohol; ¶ the child was dealing drugs last year; ¶ the child has been stealing money from his maternal grandparents; ¶ the child has a history of running away; ¶ the child has not been respecting his grandparents’ authority; ¶ the child has not been respecting the house rules; - in December 2011, the child was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; - the child is currently taking medication for the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnoses; - the child participated in an inpatient program at [A center] for thirty-four (34) days; - the child made verbal threats to a resident and on December 27 th , 2012, the child threatened another resident with a butter knife; - on December 28 th , 2012, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was placed in a rehabilitation centre; - on December 29 th , 2012, the child made threats to kill a resident; - on December 30 th , 2012, the child smoked marijuana in the rehabilitation centre’s bedroom; - on December 31 st , 2012, the Court extended the application of immediate protective measures for a period of not exceeding five (5) working days; - the mother has a history of mental health issues; - the mother has been taking steps to handle her situation; - the father has been uninvolved with the child for the last ten (10) years; - the maternal grandparents are overwhelmed with the situation and are asking that the child be placed in a rehabilitation centre.

Mesures [ 15 ] [intervenante 1] évalue ainsi la situation [1] : « The grandparents are overwhelmed and are no longer willing to care for X. X mother is minimally involved with X and she refuses to be involved with the DYP. She is diagnosed with Schizophrenia. Due to the family being unable to care for him at this time, X would need to be placed in a group home. However, it is uncertain when the maternal family would be willing to care for X again due to possible unrealistic expectations. They are ready to have him return to their care once he addresses all his challenges.

X is diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In addition, X has a transcription disability; Dysgraphia. X consumes marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes. X does not see himself as an addict. When the DYP got involved in December 2012, X expressed not wanting to stop consuming but rather wanting to consume “on occasion”. X consumes marijuana and cigarettes to calm himself. However, since the DYP’s involvement, X has reflected on this challenge and does not plan on smoking again. X expressed not having alternative coping mechanisms.

X does not want services because he does not see a problem. However, he is open to recommendations. »

[ 16 ] Avant de formuler ses recommandations, l’intervenante sociale prend en compte les éléments suivants [2] : - that the maternal grand-parents gain insight and parenting skills necessary to care for X’ special needs; - that X learn ways of channelling his emotions and coping with his anger challenges; - X must put an end to his unmanageable behaviour; such as stealing, lying and being unaccounted for; - that X stop abusing substance; drugs and alcohol. [ 17 ] Tenant compte de la position exprimée par l’adolescent, par les grands-parents et la preuve documentaire, le Tribunal conclut que les recommandations de la Directrice sont dans l'intérêt de l'adolescent. [ 18 ] EN CONSÉQUENCE, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development are considered to be in danger; [ 21 ] Measures [ 22 ] Given the assessment, the consent of the adolescent, the court report that was filed; [ 23 ] The Court concludes that the recommandations are in the best interest of X; [ 24 ] Therefore, the Court : [ 25 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a nine (9) months period, as of today; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES his reintegration back to the maternal grandparents’ home, if the situation allows, after six (6) months; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the family attends and participates in a family-counselling program in order to address their ongoing situation and conflict; [ 28 ] ORDERS that X attends and participates in a program to address his anger challenges; [ 29 ] ORDERS that X attends and participates in a program in order to address his substance abuse challenges; [ 30 ] TAKES judicial notice that the adolescent is in agreement to go trough a psychiatric assessment; [ 31 ] ORDRES that DYP supports him in order that he goes trough this assessment, as soon as possible; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X follows the recommendation of the treating professionals; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES DYP to have access to X information’s regarding his participation and development from the treating professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and his family for a period of one (1) year as of today; [ 35 ] Therefore : [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the DYP of A Youth and Family Centres for the execution of the present order. __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q.

M e Nadia Sabik Avocat de la DPJ M e Bernard Sepinwall Avocat de l'enfant Date d’audience : 11 février 2013

LG/gl