2015 QCCQ 10613, 2015 QCCQ 10613

Protection de la jeunesse — 151759 2015 QCCQ 10613 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 610-41-000386-086 DATE: April 17, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at then Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business […] at Town A, district A Applicant -and- X, domiciled and residing […] at Town A, district A Adolescent -and- A, domiciled and residing […] at Town A, district A Mother -and- B, Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business […] in Town B (Qc) Tutor ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1) and 75 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by C concerning X, born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] At the hearing the youth is present and represented by his lawyer. The mother is absent although, she was duly served. The applicant spoke to the mother on the morning of the hearing, to learn that she was unable to attend court. It also to be noted that the Director of Youth Protection was conferred tutorship to the adolescent’s property.

ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests the revision of the previous judgment on the grounds that the adolescent now displays serious behavioral disturbance which prevents the adolescent from living in a family like setting. Accordingly, the director seeks the placement of the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months. [ 4 ] The adolescent’s does not contest per say his behavior problems, but does not agree with a placement in a rehabilitation centre. He wishes to live with his aunt.

THE FACTS [ 5 ] On May 19, 2010, C declared that the security and development of the adolescent continued to be endangered due to the mother's addiction to drugs and her personal instability. X and his brother were then entrusted to a foster family until majority. [ 6 ] Following the last court order, the adolescent remained in the same foster family for a couple of years. In 2012, he changed foster family following the decision of the said foster family. At a certain point in time, X started showing behavioural problems that affected his relationship with his foster family.

As a result, the placement with this foster family broke down recently. In fact, X started skipping class and smoking marijuana. This led to an eight day suspension from school. [ 7 ] On three occasions during a few months, he ran away from his foster home and was found in his community under the influence of alcohol. Despite the foster family’s willingness to reach out to X and the attempts of the applicant to make him aware of his dire situation, the adolescent did not take accountability for his actions nor did he show openness for change.

[ 8 ] On March 3, 2015, this situation led to a provisional foster care order by which the adolescent was entrusted to a rehabilitation center. [ 9 ] The mother still struggles with the same difficulties with regard to her drug addiction. She has yet to take any steps to get help. Despite her personal struggles, she is nevertheless present in her son’s life. [ 10 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and development of the adolescent remain endangered.

In addition to the initial findings, the evidence now shows that the security and development of the adolescent are also endangered due his serious behavioral disturbance. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 11 ] As previously mentioned, the applicant asks that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of nine months. X doesn't agree with the proposed recommendation. According to him, all he has to do is stop his bad behavior. He expresses much mistrust towards the applicant and the Youth Protection services as he holds them responsible for his misery.

He wishes to live with his aunt who did not testify on his behalf. [ 12 ] In support of her recommendations, the applicant underlines that the adolescent needs structure that cannot be offered in a family like setting. She cannot help but think that X might be showing signs of mental instability like his brother, who also consumed marijuana excessively. She is preoccupied by the antisocial and defiant behavior of X and his resistance to any form of help. [ 13 ] In fact, the youth does show signs of addiction to marijuana although he denies such a problem.

The assessment done at the rehabilitation centre reveals that the adolescent would benefit from a follow-up. Since the beginning of his stay at the rehabilitation centre, the adolescent met once with the psychologist. [ 14 ] Through X’s testimony, the Court heard his pain and suffering most likely due to his lack of sense of belonging. Although he conforms to the rules set out at the rehabilitation center, the evidence shows that the adolescent is closed off to any form of intervention. As of now, he lacks insight and motivation to change.

Only when the adolescent learns to respect rules, authority and accepts that he alone is responsible for his own behaviour will progress be possible. [ 15 ] The evidence tendered convinces the Court that X needs a structured environment. It would be a recipe for failure to entrust him to his aunt as of yet.

The applicant must continue to reach out to X by providing him with the possibility of a family or extended family environment at the end of his stay in a rehabilitation center, provided he is willing to make the necessary behaviour changes. [ 16 ] The adolescent also needs to undergo a psychological assessment in order to find out more about his mental state in order to offer the proper services. [ 17 ] The Court concludes that it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for the next nine months with the possibility of integration in a foster family during the last three months.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1998, remain endangered notably due his serious behavioral disturbances; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of nine months, followed by reintegration in a foster family during the last three months, if the situation allows it; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and the mother until the adolescent’s majority; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent, the mother and his brother Y be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities with a third party if deemed necessary; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive health services required by his situation more specifically that he receive a follow-up for his drug consumption and that he undergoes a psychological assessment and receive a follow-up if deemed necessary by the professional; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the follow-up regarding the adolescent’s drug problem be provided by a counsellor from the [First Nation A]; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a regular basis; [ 26 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the present judgment; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection or his substitute for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the DYP M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the adolescent Date of hearing: April 10, 2015