2019 QCCQ 15097, 2019 QCCQ 15097

Protection de la jeunesse — 194677 2019 QCCQ 15097 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No.: 635-41-000946-191 DATE: July 15, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENISE DESCÔTEAUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [… ], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in Town A, district A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [ … ] , district A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [ … ] , district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits an application to the Court asking that the security and development of X, 12 years old, be declared in danger under sections 38( b )(1)(iii), 38( b )(2), 38( e )(1) and 38(

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents were present and represented by Mtre Angèle Tommasel. The child was present and represented by Mtre Félix St-Amand. [ 3 ] The evidence is constituted of admissions made by the parents and the child, as well as the testimonies of Ms. [social worker 1], the mother and the child. The applicant has filed some exhibits. [ 4 ] After the admissions, the Court considered a particular situation in this case. It appears that the mother and the child have different versions of the facts and, furthermore, challenge their own admissions.

Indeed, the child admits that his parents consume alcohol and drugs. For their part, the parents recognized their consumption of alcohol but denied any consumption of drugs except for cannabis. They added, however, that they do not smoke it at home.

On this subject, after her testimony, the Court does not believe the mother and will mainly consider the admissions of the child as representing the real situation at home. [ 5 ] As revealed by the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of X are compromised considering the parent’s alcohol consumption issues. [ 6 ] For the parents, the situation is not problematic (alcohol and cannabis). The evidence is clear that the parents minimize the impact of their consumption and wrongly consider that X is old enough to supervise himself. [ 7 ] Concerning

section 38( b )(1)(iii) of the Youth Protection Act , further to the applicant’s testimony, and also considering the document titled “attendance sheet of the youth” and the admissions of child, the Court considers that the parents have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that their child attends school. The child did not attend school most of the time because he was mainly hanging around town with his friends or staying home instead. Exhibit D-5 is highly indicative of this situation and clearly attests to X’s numerous absences from school.

The mother’s explanations, as well as the child’s, are simply contrary to the evidence. X was absent 75% of the time during the first session and 50% during the second session. He is often late when he attends school. Even if he has a lot of potential, he needs to be present at school. [ 8 ] It clearly appears that X does not attend school on regular basis. In addition, the child is associating with peers that have dropped out of school, consume intoxicating substances and steal. [ 9 ] With respect to

section 38( f ), the evidence shows that X consumes marijuana on a regular basis. X admits these facts.

Considering this young boy’s age, consumption will probably have a significant impact on his development. It appears quite clear that the Court must put an end to this behaviour. [ 10 ] As the Court explained to the parties, the security and development of the child are not in danger on the ground of physical abuse (38( e )

(1) Y.P.A.). The applicant submits that the mother has used unreasonable methods of upbringing with X. The mother admitted that she slapped him on the bum but not in the face. Considering the evidence, the facts are not sufficient to conclude that the security and development are compromised on this ground. [ 11 ] Considering the evidence, mainly the child’s age (12 years old), his vulnerability, his poor attendance at school, his substance abuse issue (cannabis) and the negative influence of his peers.

Considering that the parents have failed to ensure his school attendance, their alcohol and drug (cannabis) consumption issue, the fact that they do not recognize the impact of their alcohol consumption and poor supervision on their son. Considering the many occurrence reports concerning the child, more particularly three incidents concerning criminal interventions involving X. For these reasons, the Court has no hesitation to conclude that the security and development of the child are in danger in regard to paragraphs ( b )(1)(iii), ( b )(2) and (

f) of

Section 38 : [ 12 ] After declaring the situation of X to be in danger on the grounds alleged, the Court proceeded with the application of evaluation measures. A social assessment was filed. [ 13 ] As for the applicable measures, all parties agreed with the recommendations submitted. [ 14 ] Having considered the situation of the child as a whole, the Court is of the opinion that the best interest of the child is to remain with his parents considering that the parents agree with the measures.

Moreover, the parents must understand that their cooperation with Youth Protection services and with social services is mandatory. It is not optional. The child is young and vulnerable and requires daily guidance, direction and counselling to help him with peers, school and rules. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application in part; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the development and security of the child X, born […], 2007, are in danger in accordance with

section 38( b ) (1)(iii), b(2) and f); [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his parents; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the tribunal; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services concerning their alcohol issue; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school on a regular basis and that he has an attendance sheet signed for all periods for as long as deemed necessary by the parents and the social worker; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child attends meetings with an addiction counselor, if deemed necessary by the professional; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until April 30, 2020; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; __________________________________ DENISE DESCÔTEAUX, J.C.Q.

Mtre Geneviève Appolon Cain Lamarre Attorney for the applicant Mtre Félix St-Amand Attorney for the child Mtre Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the parents Date of hearing: May 14, 2019