2021 QCCQ 9875, 2021 QCCQ 9875

Protection de la jeunesse — 214337 2021 QCCQ 9875 COURT OF QUEBEC « Youth Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 540-41-006248-214 DATE : APRIL 16, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Applicant And X Born on [...], 2006 Adolescent And A B Parents JUDGMENT Under

section 38 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 adolescent and his family moved from India to Quebec during the month of October 2019.

He was 13 years old at the time. [ 2 ] On April 21, 2020, the Director received a report concerning the adolescent to the effect that he has serious behavioral disturbances. [ 3 ] At the end of his assessment, the Director concluded that the adolescent’s security and development are in danger for the above-

mentioned reason but also on the grounds that the parents are failing to take the necessary steps to ensure that the adolescent attends school. [ 4 ] To this day, the parents and the adolescent are reluctant to collaborate with the Director and to acknowledge the difficulties that exist in the family. For these reasons, the Director presents to the Tribunal an application for protection in order to help the family. [ 5 ] At the beginning of the proceedings, one of the Director’s recommendations is to maintain the adolescent with his parents.

However, after taking into account the deterioration of the situation, he now recommends the adolescent’s placement in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months and a social follow-up for a year. [ 6 ] Needless to say that the parents and the adolescent are opposed to these recommendations. They ask for another chance to demonstrate that the adolescent is able to attend school on a regular basis and to obey the rules.

QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 7 ] Is the adolescent’s placement in a rehabilitation centre the appropriate measure to order in the circumstances ? [ 8 ] The Tribunal answers this question by the affirmative. Here are the reasons for this decision.

ANALYSIS [ 9 ] The documentary and testimonial evidence reveals the following facts. [ 10 ] Between the months of December 2019 and April 2020, there were three police interventions at the domicile because of the adolescent’s behavior. [ 11 ] The adolescent can become aggressive by throwing objects or by hitting his father. [ 12 ] The mother acknowledges the adolescent’s behavioural problems only when confronted with the police reports, but claims that they are no longer relevant. [ 13 ] As for the adolescent, he claims that he doesn’t remember the reasons why the police had to intervene. [ 14 ] During meetings with the Director, it is hard to obtain the cooperation of the adolescent as he prefers playing his video games.

He can throw a fit if his parents intervene. [ 15 ] Because of his immigration status, the adolescent has the obligation to do his schooling in a French immersion class. However, since his arrival, his school attendance has been problematic just like his behaviour.

He got suspended twice, he was involved in some conflicts and he showed aggressiveness towards other students and his teachers. [ 16 ] The main issue remains the adolescent’s high level of school absenteeism and the tendency of the parents to justify his absences. [ 17 ] The parents give various explanations to justify and motivate these absences, such as : the adolescent doesn’t have access to school transportation, he has to walk 20 minutes, it’s snowing or the winter temperature is too cold, he is sick or tired. [ 18 ] It should also be noted that many times, their is simply no explanation for the absences. [ 19 ] Several attempts were made by the teachers to support the adolescent in his learning without success.

The latter shows no interest in doing his work or learning French. [ 20 ] Also, the educator assigned to the case offered to take the adolescent to school once a week, but the parents declined that offer. [ 21 ] On February 11, 2021, a provisional decision is rendered by the Tribunal to order the adolescent to attend school. The latter and the parents said they would respect the decision. [ 22 ] Unfortunately, that decision hardly changed anything since the adolescent continued to miss school regularly. [ 23 ] The parents keep minimizing the seriousness of the situation.

Their collaboration decreases over time and it becomes difficult for the Director to meet and have discussion with them. [ 24 ] It is at this point that the Director changes his orientation to recommend the placement of the adolescent. [ 25 ] On March 26, 2021, at the parents request, the Director accepts that the hearing be postponed in order to verify if the adolescent can obtain a derogation to do his schooling in English.

On that date, the Tribunal reminds the adolescent of the importance of respecting the measures imposed on February 11, especially to avoid his placement. [ 26 ] On April 16, 2021, the Tribunal is not only informed that the adolescent missed several days of school again since March 26, but also that it is not possible for him to benefit from a derogation to be schooled in English. [ 27 ] During her testimony, the mother claims that the adolescent had been sick for the past three days and that he was late to some online classes due to some connection difficulties.

She states that from now on, she intends to pay for an Uber each day to make sure he goes to school. The parents also have in mind to move to Ontario to put an end to the problematic situation. [ 28 ] When asked what he did for the past three days while at home, the adolescent answers that he was on his cellular phone or

having fun with his family. DECISION [ 29 ] When having to decide if the security or the development of child is in danger, the Youth Protection Act states the following at its

section 38.2: A decision to determine whether a report must be accepted for evaluation or whether the security or development of a child is in danger must take the following factors into consideration: (

a) the nature, gravity, persistence and frequency of the facts reported; (

b) the child’s age and personal characteristics; (

c) the capacity and the will of the parents to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; (

d) the community resources available to help the child and the child’s parents. [ 30 ] Furthermore, for the purposes of

section 38.2, any decision relating to a report for a situation of educational neglect in connection with the schooling a child receives or with the child’s compliance with compulsory school attendance must, in particular, take into consideration the following factors: (

a) the consequences for the child of not attending school or of being absent from school, in particular with regard to his social integration ability; (

b) the child’s level of development in relation to his age and personal characteristics; (

c) the measures taken by the parents to ensure the child receives proper schooling, including academic supervision of the child and cooperation with local resources, including school resources; and (

d) the local resources’ ability to support the parents in carrying out their responsibilities and to help the child make progress in his learning. If the nature of the report warrants it, the assessment of the child’s ability to re-enter the school system, the evaluation of the child’s academic development and the measures taken by the parents with regard to the conditions in which the child’s learning is to occur in a home-schooling context must also be taken into consideration. Those factors must be considered in the manner stipulated in the agreement described in

section 37.8. [ 31 ] Upon hearing all of the evidence and analyzing it with all of the above-mentioned factors, the Tribunal finds that it has no other choice but to declare the adolescent’s situation compromised on the grounds identified by the Director and to order his placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 32 ] The Tribunal wishes to mention that it is sensitive to the fact that the family’s arrival in Quebec is still quite recent. In addition to having to adapt to their new country, they have to learn a new language while making a living.

On top of all that, the Covid-19 pandemic has certainly not helped. [ 33 ] Despite this, the evidence reveals that there are some issues within the family. Before deciding to bring the case to court, the Director tried to intervene differently with the parents and the adolescent. More often than not, he was confronted with unwillingness on their part. [ 34 ] There is no doubt that the adolescent has serious behavioral disturbances and that his school attendance is highly problematic. At only 14, the consequences for him not to go to school are important.

First, he is far behind other students in terms of his learning. After nearly two years, he is still at the first level of his francization class and this is not because he has learning disabilities but rather because of his absenteeism. Second, the whole situation has an impact on his lack of social skills. [ 35 ] Going to school is not an option for the adolescent, it is an obligation. Being in a French immersion class may not be his choice, but for now, he has no other. [ 36 ] The parents and the adolescent already commited twice to respecting the Tribunal’s decisions.

The reasons given by the parents to explain the recent absences of the adolescent do not convince the Tribunal of their merits since they have been the same for more than a year. [ 37 ] Clearly, the parents have difficulty in imposing their authority on the adolescent.

As a result, they deny or minimize his behavior and constantly excuse his absences from school. [ 38 ] The rehabilitation centre will provide services to help them on that matter and to make sure that the adolescent goes to school on a daily basis. [ 39 ] That being said, it is the Tribunal’s opinion that the period of nine months recommended by the Director is too long. The Tribunal considers that the adolescent’s placement until the end of October 2021 and a social follow-up until December 20, 2021 are sufficient to allow the various objectives to be achieved.

This period of time covers the end of the present school year and the beginning

of the next one. Also, the summer period makes it possible to favour the contacts between the parents and the adolescent. If the situation evolves positively, the adolescent will be allowed to reintegrate into his family during that period of time. [ 40 ] THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL : [ 41 ] GRANTS the application; [ 42 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the adolescent in danger under

section 38

f) and b)1)iii) of the Youth Protection Act; [ 43 ] ORDERS the adolescent’s placement in a rehabilitation centre until October 31, 2021; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES the progressive reintegration of the adolescent into his family during that period of time if the evolution of the situation permits it; [ 45 ] ORDERS the adolescent to attend school assiduously; [ 46 ] ORDERS the adolescent and the parents to take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Tribunal, namely to collaborate with an educator as long as deemed necessary; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the parents report in person, on regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the measures they apply in their own regard or in the adolescent’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his parents until December 20, 2021; June 14, 2021 __________________________________ LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q.

This is the written and reasoned version of the oral judgment handed down on April 16, 2021 in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . Mtre. Annie MIELE Counsel for the Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse Mtre. Sarah Nathalie MARSOLAIS Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Delphine ROBERT for Mtre. Marie-Ève TOURIGNY Counsel for the parents LL/hl