2017 QCCQ 19912, 2017 QCCQ 19912

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710336 2017 QCCQ 19912 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000214-173 DATE: July 10, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2004 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X, thirteen years old, are endangered pursuant to paragraph f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] For the hearing, the child is present and represented by M e Constantin Kiryakidis and M e Michel Grenier acts on behalf of the father. M e Camille Champeval represents the applicant.

The mother is neither present nor represented. [ 3 ] The evidence reveals that X went to school only a few days last September and by the end of that same month, he was not attending school anymore. [ 4 ] In December, the father made the commitment that he would enroll his son in school for January and that he would make him attend school on a regular basis. [ 5 ] At that time, X lived with his father at his grandparents’ place and other relatives who are also living there. [ 6 ] Around mid-January, the child was neither enrolled nor attending school.

He was involved in a break-and-enter during that month. [ 7 ] At the end of that same month, both the mother and the father agreed that X be placed at the group home for a period of thirty days. [ 8 ] During that period of time, X was able to respect the rules established at the group home, attended school every day and had good grades. [ 9 ] When he was at the group home, the Social Worker discussed with the child about drug abuse and he admitted having tried weed. [ 10 ] At the end of the thirty days, the child was entrusted to his father. Since then, the child has not attended school on a regular basis.

The father does not know the whereabouts of his son during these school days. [ 11 ] When questioned, the adolescent said that he went to the student lounge but was not going to class.

[ 12 ] The father is not able to provide any good reasons for his son not going to school on a regular basis. He has never met with the teachers or the school director. [ 13 ] The Court comes to the conclusion that the development of X is in danger not because he has behavioural disturbances but because he is of school age and does not attend school on a regular basis.

The youth has an idle lifestyle and does nothing to prepare his future. [ 14 ] The Court is convinced that X is a talented and gifted child and he cannot be allowed to waste his time and spend all of his days doing nothing. [ 15 ] The Court does not have preponderant evidence that the child has behavioural disturbances. Apart from missing school, there is no persistent or frequent facts that could lead the Court to believe that he has behavioural disturbances. [ 16 ] There is a concern though about the fact that he does nothing of all of his days and does not submit himself to rules.

Under the law, he has to go to school and he cannot do just what he wants or always have his own way. [ 17 ] Twice the father was given the opportunity to settle the problem of school attendance and the evidence shows that he does not have the capacity to ensure that X goes to school. For these motives, the Court: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are compromised under paragraph b) of

section 38.1 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 20 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception center until December 22, 2017 with reintegration with one of his parents when the evolution of the situation allows it; [ 21 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; [ 22 ] ORDERS that any absence of school be declared to the Social Worker with the reason for this absence within 24 hours; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to X and his parents for a period of twelve months; [ 24 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Social Worker; [ 25 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the court order. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre co mmunautaire juridique A Lawyer for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the fathera Date of hearing: May 25, 2017