2016 QCCQ 8442, 2016 QCCQ 8442

Protection de la jeunesse — 163757 2016 QCCQ 8442 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029715-158 Date: May 31, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 31, 2016, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on June 11, 2015, whereby the now eleven year-old child, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of five months with a possible reintegration to the care of his parents, with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision and extension dated March 7, 2016, are as follows: 3.1.

The child remained at [center A] throughout the summer and continued to make significant gains; 3.2. In September 2015, the child resumed his attendance at the [School A] in Grade 5; 3.3. The mother reports that the child’s grades and behaviour in school are positive; 3.4. In October 2015, the child was integrated to the mother’s care with the ongoing support of an educator; 3.5. For a certain period of time, the child continued to see his therapist Rick Noble at the Montreal Children’s Hospital; 3.6. The family also benefitted from counseling at the Montreal Children’s Hospital with a social worker; 3.7.

The father participated in a parenting group offered by [Center B]; 3.8. The mother made use of behavioural charts, making proper use of the educator’s services and setting clear routines in the home; 3.9. The mother admits to finding the child’s constant need to negotiate rules and routine challenging; 3.10. In February 2016, the child started to revert to old behavioural patterns as he became much more argumentative and difficult to manage; 3.11. While the mother maintains her preference to continue addressing the family’s situation with the support of community services,

she recognizes that these services were not yet in place; 3.12.

Youth protection support remains necessary in order to maintain stability, assist the mother in continuing to develop positive and constructive ways to approach the child’s challenging behaviours (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Plourde, admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, also admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Sepinwall, who represented the child, admitted most of the alleged facts and approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-5 and D-6 as evidence: D-5: Court report, signed by [Social Worker 1] and [Social Worker 2], dated April 29, 2016; D-6: Addendum, signed by [Social Worker 1], dated May 25, 2016. [ 9 ] In

summary, the parents acknowledge the need to prolong the child’s placement and to receive ongoing services. The mother expressed her gratitude for the support received to provide therapeutic services for her son. She has tried to remain as involved as possible and is hoping to provide an adequate home for her son as quickly as she can.

She remains especially committed to repairing her relationship with him. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to address the child’s behavioral issues, including collaborating with the services of an educator; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child continue to receive therapeutic services; [ 16 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek therapeutic and supportive services in the community; [ 17 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo a Parental Capacity Assessment; [ 18 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother has been referred to the Jewish General Hospital day program to receive services with the child, that the program begins in September 2016 and that the family intends to participate; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Center B] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 21 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 22 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Marie-Josée Paiement

Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Attorney for the child Me Guylaine Plourde Attorney for the mother TD/vl