2011 QCCQ 5165, 2011 QCCQ 5165

Protection de la jeunesse — 11439 2011 QCCQ 5165 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N° : 525-41-021136-080 DATE : February 16, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of: X Born on […], 1994 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 16, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered February 22, 2010, ordering that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until October 31, 2010, with reintegration to his mother’s care when the situation allowed.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained with the family until December 1 st , 2010. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent’s behaviour has improved in the rehabilitation centre; • The adolescent can have temper tantrums when he does not get his way and he can be oppositional to the staff of the rehabilitation centre; • The adolescent is not motivated at school and often arrives late to class; • The adolescent has weekend visits with his mother, but spends most of his time, including overnights, at his maternal aunt’s home and his maternal grandmother’s home; • The adolescent has difficulty discussing his relationship with his mother and what happens in the home when he visits her; • The adolescent has tested positive for marijuana after some weekend visits at the mother’s home; • At the rehabilitation centre, the adolescent has been following up on his health needs, but he needs the constant supervision of the staff to do so; • When the adolescent returns to the rehabilitation centre after his weekend visits at his mother’s home, his insulin numbers are erratic and high; • On October 21, 2010, the adolescent went to the Diabetic clinic at the Hospital A to have his sugar level checked and it was recommended that the adolescent not be returned home or to a group home before his caregivers undergo training to follow up on his diabetic needs; • Since the last court order, the adolescent attended his medical appointments with educators from his rehabilitation centre, but the mother never attended any of these appointments;

• The mother is not collaborating with the staff of the rehabilitation centre and does not want services from any educators. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until his age of majority, […], 2012. The Director informs the Court that the adolescent has integrated the group home A on Thursday February 10, 2011. [ 5 ] The mother is not present at the hearing although she was informed of the Court date, as she was present in court on November 17, 2010, when the date for the hearing was set.

The mother is aware of the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection and maintains the same position to the effect that she wants her son entrusted to her care. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the mother. [ 6 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees to remain at the group home, but for a period of three to six months.

The adolescent testifies that he knows how to control his diabetes, what to do when his sugar levels are high and how to administer his insulin and take his blood sugar readings. He says that he is aware that he must control his diabetes in order to stay healthy. He affirms that he has changed and wants to prove to everyone that he can take responsibility for his medication. He says that his uncle will probably give him a job in his restaurant and that he has also applied to work at McDonald’s.

He confirms that on weekends he spends some time at his mother's, then goes to his aunt A's and sometimes to his sister’s home. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. [social worker 1], youth protection delegate, and read the report that the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence establishes that following the hearing of November 17, 2010, the youth worker scheduled a meeting for January 18, 2011, with Ms. [social worker 2], the manager of the unit A, to meet with X’s mother and extended family to discuss the possibility of the adolescent integrating the care of his aunt B.

However, the mother did not attend. Were present, the adolescent, Ms. A, maternal aunt, Ms. B, maternal aunt, and Ms. Y, X’s sister. [ 8 ] At this meeting, the adolescent stated very clearly that he does not want to go and live with his aunt B. As for his aunt A, she will soon be moving to city A and is not ready to take responsibility for her nephew. Ms. Y has her children to care for and therefore cannot care for her brother.

The extended family is afraid of taking full responsibility of the adolescent's diabetic situation. [ 9 ] The youth worker considers that X still needs a structured environment and clear rules in order to function adequately at school and in the community and to control his diabetes. X's last appointment at the Diabetic Clinic A was on December 9, 2010. Dr. Barnes expresses that the adolescent needs a lot of supervision around the taking of his medication.

He says that family and staff at the group home need to receive training about diabetes management in order to adequately supervise the adolescent and ensure his safety. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until his age of majority. The adolescent still needs supervision concerning his health issues and his behaviour. The mother refuses to cooperate with the social follow-up or to attend her son's appointments at the Diabetic clinic A. Furthermore, the relationship between the mother and the adolescent is strained.

However, the adolescent's transfer to the group home A will help to enhance his involvement in the community and help him develop his autonomy. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 14 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the adolescent, X; [ 15 ] EXTENDS the order rendered February 21, 2010; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until his age of majority, […], 2012; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his mother, siblings and extended family, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care services required by his situation; [ 19 ] ORDERS the adolescent to attend all his appointments at the Hospital Diabetic Clinic A and to follow his treatment plan; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend all required medical appointments for the adolescent and that she collaborate with the required medical treatment plan; [ 21 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorised to access and share relevant information with the professionals from the Hospital A regarding the adolescent’s medical condition and compliance with treatment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school regularly for the duration of the academic year; [ 23 ] ORDERS the adolescent to submit to random drug and alcohol testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent consents to submit to random drug and alcohol testing; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family until his age of majority, […], 2012; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth Centre A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed February 21, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Edith Zavodni (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Carole De Lagrave (Counsel for the adolescent) Date of hearing: February 16, 2011