2023 QCCQ 7412, 2023 QCCQ 7412

Protection de la jeunesse — 231492 2023 QCCQ 7412 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000246-083 DATE : March 28, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X Born on [...], 2007 Child and A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise the order rendered on November 6, 2017, in respect of the child. Regarding the father, the DYP asks to be dispensed of notifying the application to him since he is nowhere to be found. The DYP attempted to retrace him unsuccessfully. Moreover, they use a specialized firm to retrace him without any result.

For these reasons, the Court dispenses the DYP to serve the amended application to the father and for the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed. CONTEXT [ 2 ] In May 2015, the child had already been the subject of a majority placement with another family, that of his aunt C. However, this family was not suitable anymore for the child.

There was a situation of neglect regarding the home in terms of hygiene, and inadequate educational contribution due to a lack of supervision from the foster family. [ 3 ] For these reasons, the child was removed from this family and entrusted to another foster family, the one of D. On November 6, 2017, a judgment in revision of order is rendered entrusting the child to this family until he reaches the age of majority. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 4 ] Now, what about the current situation? [ 5 ] The child attends the program: A at the [High school A]. He is described as a calm student and keeps to himself.

He is often by himself but has positive interactions with his peers. Regarding his internship, he finds it difficult to stay motivated and committing to the program. In the end, it did not work out and his behaviour such as stealing made it difficult to find another internship. [ 6 ] After living with his last foster family for the past 8 years, Ms. D decides to no longer continue her commitment to the child because of his inappropriate behaviour that has persisted for many years. He commits several thefts in his neighbourhood and even tries to steal a tractor. He steals not only objects but also food.

He challenges the authority of the foster mother. She never mentioned the things she lived through with the child to the DYP, believing things were under control, and blaming his actions on past traumas. [ 7 ] However, his problematic actions have exacerbated over time. When he was supposed to be at school, he stole a car, crashed, and abandoned it, on the spot. He returned home without mentioning a word of this event. Police contacted him but no charges are laid.

[ 8 ] The child also physically attacks his brother, who is also entrusted to the same foster family, as well as the foster mother when she intervenes. She fears him and wants him gone. He is then temporarily entrusted to a family member in order to find another foster family for him. However, this person withdraws because she does not feel safe in his presence. The child is violent towards her children and at night he talks to himself rather erratically with different voices. [ 9 ] The child has had difficulty functioning properly in his last two home environments. He is feared and his actions are disturbing.

It was decided that he be placed in a rehabilitation centre. He is now attending another school in a similar program of WGP. He shows some progress and only a few of his past inadequate behaviour were observed. He respects the rules and acts accordingly with his peers. However, the child denies his inappropriate behaviours and when he admits some, he tries to justify them.

He also tends to lie in the face of situations that are very different in reality, such as the fact that his paternal grandmother wishes to take care of him, which is untruth. [ 10 ] The child has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as well as an o Oppositionnal Defiant Disorder (ODD) for which he receives a medical follow-up and is medicated. He also has a chromosomal abnormality and cognitive limitations.

In the psychologist’s opinion, it seems that his behaviour is more related to an emotional immaturity rather than psychological difficulties or mental disorder. [ 11 ] The parents’ situation did not evolve much. The child has an unstable relationship with them. Over the years, they have always been in and out of his life. The father lives in Ontario and continues to have contact with his son, from time to time. The mother also lives out of town. The collaboration of the parents with the DYP is difficult, especially with the father who does not always answer his phone or return his calls.

Since the placement of the child in the centre, the mother is more available for the follow-up. [ 12 ] The child faces several diagnoses that seem to have an impact on his behaviour. Currently, he adapts well to the rehabilitation centre, an environment that meets all of his needs. He responds well to close supervision and to being in a predictable environment. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduced, the absence of contestation from the parents and the position of the child’s lawyer, the application is well founded.

Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP are in the child’s best interest. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED VERBALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] DISPENSES the notification of the amended application for revision of order to the father; [ 15 ] GRANTS the amended application for revision of order; [ 16 ] REVISES the court order rendered on November 6, 2017; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre designated by the DYP; [ 19 ] AUTHORIZES that the child benefits from outings in a foster family designated by the DYP, if the situation allows it; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child benefits from outings of more than 15 days in the maternal environment, if the situation allows it; [ 21 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and his parents be determined by agreement between the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents and the child actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until September 30, 2023; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment. _________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Joanie Bujold for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child

Ms. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father (dispense/absent) Written judgment filed on April 13, 2023.