2016 QCCQ 10530, 2016 QCCQ 10530

Protection de la jeunesse — 164347 2016 QCCQ 10530 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000659-151 DATE: July 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 [Social Worker 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district B (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town C, district A (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ Rectified J UDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Considering the clerical error on the judgment of the undersigned, dated on June 9, 2016. [ 2 ] However, the date of birth of the adolescent is incorrect and should read it [...], 2001 instead of [...], 2001. [ 3 ] Considering the existence of

section 338 of the CCP . [ 4 ] Considering that the initial judgment has already been served to the parties. For these reasons the Court: [ 5 ] Rectifies the judgment of June 9, 2016 as follow: Date of birth of the adolescent must be [...], 2001 . __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C. Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the adolescent Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: June 9, 2016 Protection de la jeunesse — 164347 2016 QCCQ 10530

COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000659-151 DATE: July 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 [Social Worker 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district B (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town C, district A (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on August 26, 2015, by Justice Nancy McKenna. On that date, the Court ordered that the adolescent be entrusted to the foster family operated by Mrs C until the 30 th of June, 2016. The Court ordered other measures as well. [2] The adolescent is present and represented. The aunt C is present as well. [3] Both parents are absent. Mrs [Social Worker 1] testified about their personal situation.

The mother is back with her boyfriend in Town B. She knew that the Court case was fixed to proceed today. She was agreeing with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations concerning her son. The father is in a rehabilitation center concerning his addictions. He was aware about the motion and agreeing with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations. The motion was served on both parents. [4] The Court allowed the parties to proceed in the absence of the parents considering the adolescent’s best interest. [5] The adolescent agrees to be entrusted to his aunt until he reaches the age of majority.

The facts [ 6 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 7 ] During the September 2015 Court hearing, it was mentioned that the adolescent had suicidal thoughts and had hung a rope in the bush to commit suicide. [ 8 ] Then the adolescent was registered in a hockey league to help managing his anger and increasing his self esteem. He enjoyed that activity and understood he needed to be doing well at school and at home if he wanted to keep this activity. [ 9 ] In October, a follow-up with an educator started.

The youth asked to work with that educator because he felt in trust with him. Since then they are meeting every two weeks. [ 10 ] The youth started to skip some classes. Mid-October things were getting better. [ 11 ] In November, Mrs C separated from her spouse. In November as well, the youth was evaluated by a child psychiatrist who concluded that he was not suicidal and did not have any needs for a follow-up with a child psychiatrist. [ 12 ] On February, things started to be more difficult for the youth in school because of a teacher with whom he did not get along.

The youth skipped all classes with this teacher.

[ 13 ] In March the mother who was living in Town B was back in Town C. Things were difficult at home for the youth. The aunt felt that he wanted to spend time with his mother because he did not listen to her anymore. The Director of Youth Protection arranged some visits between the youth and his mother. By the end of the month things were getting better. [ 14 ] In April, the youth was missing lots of school. He admitted to his educator that he was selling drug. On April 12, he got into a fight with another student at school. [ 15 ] The youth is a 15 years old who develops normally.

He has difficulty expressing his emotion properly. Now he has a girlfriend. Family is important for him and it causes him pain because his family is torn apart. School is a challenge for him; he does not like to go to school and misses many classes. [ 16 ] In March, the mother moved to Town C. When she was in Town C she was able to have good contacts with the youth. She was able to reassure him regarding her presence in his life and the fact he has the right to feel good in his foster family. [ 17 ] Things were difficult for her.

She admitted she had a relapse when she got back in Town C but seems now to control her alcohol intakes. [ 18 ] The mother is back with her boyfriend in Town B. This is a toxic relationship. [ 19 ] As for the father he left Town C last April to integrate a rehabilitation center. He admitted to the Director of Youth Protection that he was doing lots of drug and was even selling. The father was not involved in X’s life. [ 20 ] As for the aunt she has been separated from her spouse.

She is doing fine and the youth was not confronted to any fight between her and her ex-spouse. [ 21 ] When things get difficult with the youth the aunt tends to be easily discouraged and needs Director of Youth Protection’s help. However she agrees to take care of X until he reaches his majority. He is happy with her and listens to her. Decision [ 22 ] The youth is now 15 years old. He has a history of bound cut. Since he was a baby he was living with his aunt Mrs C and her spouse. It was an agreement between the mother and the aunt.

Later on, in 2003, the Director of Youth Protection entrusted the youth to his aunt. [ 23 ] In 2004, the youth was entrusted to his mother who had improved her situation. The file was closed in 2005 and reopened in 2006. In 2006, the youth was entrusted to his paternal grandmother. In 2009, he was entrusted to her again until he reaches his majority. During that period the grandmother was sending the youth to his aunt very often. The situation became difficult with the grandmother and the youth was entrusted again to his mother who was doing well and collaborating with different services.

The file was closed in 2012 and reopened at the end of 2014. Then the youth was entrusted for good to his aunt Mrs C. [ 24 ] His life history demonstrates clearly that X did not have any stability in his life. Since he was born no matter what happened with his parents he could count on his aunt who was there to take care of him. [ 25 ] The Court concludes that it is quite urgent to stabilize the youth’s situation. He is happy in his aunt’s place and wants to be part of the family even if he knows that he already is.

The mother understands the situation and is helping her son by allowing him to love his aunt even if it is clear that she will remain his mother. [ 26 ] The contacts between the youth and his parents take place upon agreement between the parties. However the Director of Youth Protection supervision is needed for the modalities. As for the contacts between the youth and his uncle D they need to be supervised as well because this uncle can be a bad influence. [ 27 ] The Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2001, is still compromised according to the Youth Protection Act .

The Court concludes as well that the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations concerning the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the youth’s best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 28 ] Grants the motion; [ 29 ] Maintains that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2001, is still compromised for the same reasons that were decided previously; [ 30 ] Orders that the youth be entrusted to his foster family, Mrs C, until he reaches the age of majority; [ 31 ] Maintains the contacts between the adolescent and his parents, those contacts will occurred upon agreement between the parties but will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection regarding the modalities; [ 32 ] Maintains the contacts between the adolescent and his uncle D, those contacts will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and in the presence of a third party approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] Maintains the contacts between the adolescent and his brother Y, those contacts will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and in the presence of a third party if deemed necessary; [ 34 ] orders that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent, his parents and Mrs C;

[ 35 ] Orders the parents to report to the Director of Youth Protection on a regular basis; [ 36 ] recommends that the parents benefit from an individual follow-up notably concerning their substance abuse for as long as deemed necessary by the professional involved in their situation; [ 37 ] orders the parents not to consume any drug or alcohol in the youth’s presence and that they remain sober all the time in his presence; [ 38 ] orders the parents to take the necessary measures to ensure that the youth is not in the presence of people under the influence of drug or alcohol; [ 39 ] allows the Director of Youth Protection to sing form in regards to school or health authorization concerning the youth in the event that neither the parents can be reached; [ 40 ] Orders the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 41 ] entruts the adolescent’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection as for the execution of this order. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the adolescent Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: June 9, 2016