2012 QCCQ 18177, 2012 QCCQ 18177

Protection de la jeunesse — 127563 2012 QCCQ 18177 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN […] Youth Division DATE: November 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: N°: 635-41-000436-110 X , born on […], 2002 ______________________________________________________________________ A AND B Parents and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A, working in City A Petitioner ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON REVISION (Section 95 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is a petition pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] concerning X, 10 years old. The Director is making an application for a placement in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine (9) months. ISSUES RAISED: [ 2 ] The main subject is to decide on a placement in a rehabilitation centre, actually in a specialized foster home, to be followed by reintegration into a regular foster home after three (3) months, where possible. THE FACTS: [ 3 ] The Court has to review the decision rendered by Judge Paul Chevalier in November 15, 2011, pursuant to

section 38 of the Act. He had ordered that the youth remain at home with his mother, with different measures applicable for a period of six (6) months. [ 4 ] On May 8, 2012, Judge Chevalier extended the application of his judgment until June 12, 2012. On that date, Judge Nancy McKenna extended it once more until July 17, 2012. [ 5 ] On July 17, 2012, the hearing under

section 95 was again postponed, but this time Judge Lise Gagnon decided that the child would be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, being a specialized foster family. On August 27, 2012, Judge Renée Lemoine extended the provisional measures until September 18, when the case finally proceeded under

section 95 when the undersigned was presiding. [ 6 ] Since July 2012 then, the child has been entrusted to a specialized foster family in City A .

That family provides a highly structured environment for the youth, who has been displaying many serious behaviour problems, considering his young age, notably: ➢ Inappropriate sexual behaviour; ➢ Aggressiveness towards his peers and the school staff; ➢ Disrespect for authority; ➢ Irregular school attendance. [ 7 ] The child first remained with his mother, but he had to be removed from her care and placed in a specialized foster family last summer because his behaviour problems were persistent and not addressed by the mother.

Also the mother would not collaborate with the Director, neither with the school. [ 8 ] This involved that the child was taken out of his community of A, to be fostered in City A. ANALYSIS: [ 9 ] The father has never been involved in the youth’s life. Currently, it is the first time that the father’s name appears in the

proceedings. Not having been served with the amended motion adding his name as a party, he is of course absent at the hearing. He will be made aware of the situation when the Court order will be served to him. He has not shown any interest in his son X so far. He is reported to be living somewhere in [region A]. If no address can be found, he will be served this judgment by a notice in the newspaper. [ 10 ] The mother was not present when Judge Chevalier made his decision in November 2011. She has never shown up at any of the four hearings held since then. Her lawyer had to cease representing her in July.

She still is absent at the present hearing, and she has not appointed a new lawyer. [ 11 ] While the file was in deliberation, we learnt that she mandated lawyer Angela Tommasel on October 25. [ 12 ] The youth has never attended the Court hearings, but he was represented by the Legal Aid lawyer who kept in touch with him. [ 13 ] Overall, it appears that the placement in a specialized family, initiated by an order of Judge Lise Gagnon in July, has been beneficial to the youth so far. The measures will continue to apply for nine months, starting on September 18.

After three months, progressive reintegration into a regular foster home will apply, if and when it is possible. [ 14 ] The Tribunal hopes that the mother will cooperate with the Director, with the rehabilitation milieu, and also with the school. [ 15 ] A psychological assessment, in progress, will also be very useful in order to address the issues concerning X and to provide follow-up. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the petition. [ 18 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered by Judge Paul Chevalier on November 15, 2011. [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on […], 2002 are still in danger. [ 20 ] ORDERS the placement of the youth in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine (9) months, with possible reintegration into a regular foster family after three (3) months if the situation allows. [ 21 ] TAKES note that the current rehabilitation centre is a specialized foster home located in City A . [ 22 ] ORDERS that the youth receive the health care and health services needed in his condition, or recommended in the psychological evaluation in progress. [ 23 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a daily basis. [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother and the youth collaborate with the school staff and with the Director, AND THAT they take an active

part in the measures ordered. [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother seek parental skills assistance from the Director and from the C.L.S.C. [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother report to the Director in person, once a month or as instructed, on the measures she is applying in her own regard and in the child’s regard, to end the situation in which the security and development of the youth are in danger. [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Director provide aid, counselling and assistance to the mother and the child for a period of nine (9) months. [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES that the present judgment be served to the father by a public notice published in a newspaper distributed in the City B. [ 29 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this judgment. [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present judgment. [ 31 ] ORDERS the clerk to send a copy of the present judgment by regular mail to lawyer Angela Tommasel. __________________________________ CLAUDE BIGUÉ, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault For the D.Y.P. Me Myriam Gaudreault For the youth Maggie Alaku, mother, absent and not represented B , father, absent and not represented Date of hearing: September 18, 2012