2017 QCCQ 18669, 2017 QCCQ 18669

Protection de la jeunesse — 179011 2017 QCCQ 18669 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-028925-147 DATE : July 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2004 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on January 19, 2016, maintaining the adolescent in the care of his parents with a social follow-up as well as other various corrective measures. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that despite numerous services, there has been no improvement regarding any of the issues previously identified; the adolescent’s behaviour has worsened; the father continues to minimize the extent of his son’s problems; the parents’ relationship remains antagonistic. [ 3 ] The Director is asking the Court to order the adolescent’s placement in a rehabilitation centre until May 8, 2018 along with a social follow-up. [ 4 ] The mother acknowledges the accuracy of the situation as reported in the various court reports filed into evidence.

She agrees with the recommendations made by the Director. [ 5 ] The father is of the opinion that his son has demonstrated improvement since the last order. He asks that X be entrusted to his care. [ 6 ] X supports his father’s position and asks to return home. The Situation [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the adolescent’s behaviour remains of great concern both at school and in his mother’s home. He is described by teachers, his social worker and his mother in the following terms: aggressive, disruptive, defiant, vulgar, intimidating, bullying, impulsive and verbally abusive.

He is prone to outbursts of anger when faced with consequences. [ 8 ] The adolescent accepts no responsibility for his situation; he denies his difficulties or minimizes their extent and blames others for his current provisional placement. His lack of insight is a longstanding problem that shows no sign of abating. [ 9 ] Over the years, the adolescent has had the benefit of a youth protection worker, an educator, art therapy, individual and group therapy and hospital services.

Still, very little progress is observed. [ 10 ] Of even greater concern is the father’s persistence in denying the seriousness of his son’s personal problems. Both the

psychological and psychiatric assessments confirm that X’s behavioural issues have not evolved. In particular, the psychiatric assessment concludes as follows: “X is a 13 year old boy who is presenting with an 11 year history of explosive and oppositional behaviours with a formal of diagnosis of conduct disorder made at age 3. Over the past nine or ten years the A family has received extensive therapeutic help from many different resources. The overall sense is that none of these interventions were useful and that X’s behaviours are worsening as he enters his adolescence.

He is totally invested in defying his mother’s authority.

Although the father professes to being concerned about X’s present life and future well-being, it is evident that many years of counselling by experienced professionals has made very little impact on his willingness to challenge his son and to help him begin to take responsibility for his behaviours which are increasingly having a major and destructive impact on the totality of his development, whether it be his academic success, his capacity to relate to peers, or his ability to cooperate with authority. [1] [ 11 ] This conclusion is coherent with the evidence as a whole which establishes that the father continues to defend his son’s misbehaviour.

He argues that his son is being unfairly labelled. He describes his son’s extremely disruptive behaviour as nothing more than the result of his outspoken nature. He undermines the opinions of the many professionals who have been involved with his son over a number of years, claiming that their perception of X is exaggerated and that they only see the negative. [ 12 ] As a direct result, the adolescent feels no sense of accountability and consequently sees no need to change.

Hence, his resistance to therapy should come as no surprise. [ 13 ] While the father acknowledges that X is abusive with his mother, he considers that her inadequacies as a parent are to blame, claiming that she has a toxic effect on the adolescent. He believes that his own parenting skills are not an issue and considers that X respects his authority. [ 14 ] The father’s theory fails to take into consideration that the child’s misbehaviour in the mother’s home is in direct response to her attempts to impose structure, discipline and consequences.

The Court is of the opinion that if the adolescent in fact does not misbehave in his father’s home, it’s the result of a lack of structure, discipline and consequences in that environment.

The father’s unwillingness to enforce accountability ensures peace in his home but perpetuates the adolescent’s lack of discipline and lack of emotional self-regulation elsewhere. [ 15 ] When asked his opinion regarding his relationship with each of his parents and in particular, how to improve his relationship with his mother, the adolescent provides the following answers to the psychologist: “He was asked if he had similar trouble at his father’s house, and he said “My mom is a stubborn bitch, I can talk to my dad”. He added “my dad gives me more freedom. I can talk to him, my mom blows me off”.

When asked what would have to change for them to get along, and he said “she has to back off, give me much more screen time, she needs to realize I want to play M-rated games, and I have to be cleaner”.

He was asked to explain which games he likes to play, and he likes to play Grand Theft Auto, and that it is M-rated, because it is very violent, [you] have a prostitute, have sex with her and shoot her” [2] . “ [ 16 ] These excerpts are indicative of the lack of structure in the father’s home as well as the adolescent’s complete lack of insight. [ 17 ] In placement, the adolescent demonstrates an inability to follow rules as basic as cleaning his room or showering. At school, he continues to demonstrate defiant and oppositional behaviour.

He requires constant supervision and monitoring. [ 18 ] The evidence as a whole supports the Director’s position that the youth requires the structured environment of a rehabilitation centre.

In addition, he has access to various services such as anger management workshops. [ 19 ] In light of the situation, the Court concludes that the adolescent’s interests are best served by the measures proposed by the Director. [ 20 ] During the course of the next year, the Court encourages the father to obtain individual services in order to help him acknowledge and accept the severity of X’s behaviour problems. [ 21 ] In addition, it is vital that the father refrain from undermining the professionals surrounding his son.

Despite an obvious need for therapy, X is refusing to participate in any kind of psychological follow-up. Encouragement from his father would facilitate the rehabilitative process. [ 22 ] Along the same lines, the Court invites the parents to make a sincere effort to resolve their longstanding issues.

Their antagonistic relationship plays a significant role in the adolescent’s behaviour problems and needs to be addressed in a serious manner. [ 23 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent continue to be endangered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until May 11, 2018; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his parents be determined by all parties, failing which they shall be determined by the Director; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his brother Y be twice per month, and be supervised by a person authorized by the Director (other than the parents);

[ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent and his parents follow through with the recommendations of the psychiatric and psychological assessments; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive specific health services, namely a psychological follow up; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents seek and participate in individual support and/or therapeutic services to address their parenting and personal issues; [ 32 ] ORDERS that both parents not expose the adolescent to their conflicts; [ 33 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that both parents agree not to discuss with the adolescent the relevancy of him having to attend therapy nor the medication nor the content of the therapy; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents develop an effective form of communication while exchanging information regarding the adolescent; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share pertinent and necessary information with any treating professional or support services other than individual therapy with respect to the father, except for the purpose of ensuring his presence in such services [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until May 11, 2018.

SIGNED IN CITY A On July 6, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the D.Y.P. Judith Shapiro-Knight Attorney for the adolescent Dates of hearing: March 16 and June 13, 2017