r v. A, 2017 QCCQ 20792

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711154 2017 QCCQ 20792 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005237-162 DATE: October 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2002 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents -and- C Guardian ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Context [ 2 ] X is under the care of his maternal grand-father since 2010 with issues of parental abuse, neglect and violence initially motivating the application of protective measures, including his removal from his parental environment. [ 3 ] For the last several years, his mother maintains infrequent contacts with him, while his father is altogether absent.

It is notable that previous judgments underline the father’s history of sexual delinquency and his consequent failure to undertake a related therapy, which underpins a prohibition of contacts. [ 4 ] In 2012, the Director of Youth Protection ceases its implication following a judgment declaring the grand-father X’s legal guardian. [ 5 ] The adolescent’s serious behavioural difficulties result in the Court declaring a new situation of endangerment in a judgment dating December 13, 2016.

As well as applying various measures of aid and counsel for one year, the Court entrusts X to a rehabilitation center for 6 months. [ 6 ] Alleging that the adolescent’s behavioural issues continue to challenge his functioning, the Director of Youth Protection applies for the revision and extension of the protective measures for one year, including the pursuit of his placement in a structured setting. [ 7 ] The parents consign their admissions and subscribe to the orientation proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, namely as concerns the establishment of supervised contacts with their son.

Such is also the case for the adolescent and his guardian. [ 8 ] Analysis and decision [ 9 ] Since the last order, X remains in a rehabilitation center. Despite the services and structure in place, his progress remains inconsistent. His behavioural issues remain active, more particularly in relation to his drug use and anger management. [ 10 ] On three occasions, X runs away from the center. He admits to continued drug use while still presenting boundary issues with aggressive reactions.

[ 11 ] A recent psychological evaluation concludes to the adolescent presenting a conduct disorder requiring a clear and constant structure. Offering insight as to X’s functioning, this evaluation permits the Director to further focus their interventions. [ 12 ] Both X, his grandfather and spouse, recognize that the family dynamic presents significant dysfunction. Presently, X refuses contacts home and doesn’t want to work on this relationship. [ 13 ] The grandfather cooperates with the intervention.

He recognizes that X can’t return to his home environment as he needs to integrate some real changes in his functioning. X expresses wanting to stay in a rehabilitation center for the next school year, stating his intention of addressing his drug and anger management issues. [ 14 ] X agrees to his father’s request to resume contacts with him despite his long absence from his life, demonstrating a natural need to explore this relationship.

Considering X’s age, reduced vulnerability and expressed wish to see his father, the Court considers that the establishment of these contacts are in his best interests, but under supervision in order to ensure their beneficial nature. [ 15 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court determines that the evaluation and orientation presented by the Director of Youth Protection is an accurate reflection of the adolescent’s situation and his best interests. [ 16 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 19 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on December 13, 2016; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his guardian (grandfather) be following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his parents be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third person designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, his parents and his guardian, take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescent, his family as well as his guardian; [ 25 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Petitioner Me Gilles Dupont Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: October 11, 2017