2016 QCCQ 18868, 2016 QCCQ 18868

Protection de la jeunesse — 169706 2016 QCCQ 18868 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000668-152 DATE: October 25, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X , born on [...], 2000 [Social Worker 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , unknown address Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district A (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review a decision rendered on January 20, 2016, by Justice McKenna. On that date the Court maintained that the youth’s security or development was still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act .

As one of the applicable measures the Court ordered that the adolescent be entrusted to a closeness foster family operated by Mrs C until the end of December 2016. [ 2 ] If this application is granted the Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to entrust the youth to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months with a progressive reintegration in a foster family. [ 3 ] The father is present and represented. He acknowledges that the youth’s security or development is still in danger pursuant to the Law.

He agrees with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations concerning the measures and wants the best for his son. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented. He acknowledges that his security or development is still in danger pursuant to the Law and disagrees with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations concerning the measures. He asks the Court to be entrusted to his aunt Mrs C. [ 5 ] The mother is absent. She is not involved in her son’s life and her whereabouts are unknown. The Director of Youth Protection tried to serve her many times unsuccessfully.

The facts [ 6 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 7 ] The youth was entrusted to his aunt in 2014 and 2015 as well. He was then doing relatively well and was attending school. [ 8 ] Again on January 20, 2016, the Court entrusted the adolescent to his aunt Mrs C who was then a closeness foster family. [ 9 ] However the youth’s situation is not going very well since then. [ 10 ] The youth admits that he had all year a poor attendance at school and had failed all of his classes.

He had been suspended from school for different reasons such as getting in a fight with another class mate. [ 11 ] The youth was given work to complete at home in his geography class as the school’s direction granted that he had to focus on one class and to complete it before the start of the next semester. He did not finish his homework and was suspended from school and told not to present himself for the final exams. [ 12 ] The youth was involved in some criminal activities back in the summer and fall 2014 that brought him in Court. He was

sentenced and ordered to complete 200 hours of community services in the next 12 months with a supervised probation period of 15 months. [ 13 ] On July 11, 2016, the Court entrusted the youth to a foster family as his aunt was no more complying with the regulations of Centre Jeunesse. He was moved to a foster family in Town C, Quebec.

On August 1 st , 2016, he was moved to a foster home in Town B from the rehabilitation center in Val-d'Or where he spent the week-end after he ran away from the foster family in Town C. [ 14 ] On July 11, 2016, the youth ran away from the Courthouse. [ 15 ] On July 30, 2016, the Court finally entrusted the youth in a rehabilitation center until the next Court date on September 7, 2016. [ 16 ] Before July 11, 2016, Mrs C was happy to be able to provide for her nephew.

However she was having difficulty managing things and was not able to meet the standards of Centre Jeunesse anymore. [ 17 ] For instance the aunt did not always have access to a working vehicle to bring the adolescent to school when he was missing the bus. [ 18 ] In July 2016, the youth complained that there was not enough food at his aunt’s. Sometimes he had to go at his father’s when he was hungry.

The youth spoke of often receiving second hand clothing from a thrift shop in Town A. [ 19 ] The aunt openly admitted that she currently had problems in managing her budget and that sometimes she was very low on basis necessities from time to time. [ 20 ] The aunt testified in Court and acknowledged that she went through financial problems from May to July, 2016. Her brother passed away and she had to pay all the funeral expenses.

She said that her financial situation is all right now and that she wanted the youth back with her. [ 21 ] The mother is not involved in her son’s life and not in contact with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 22 ] As for the father he was providing home care services for the adolescent’s grandfather who has passed away in July, 2016. The father has also been employed for a few months through the [Company A]. [ 23 ] The father continues to consume alcohol and dabbles with drugs. [ 24 ] The youth and his father have a love hate relationship.

However when his father is drinking the youth knows that it is best for him to stay away. The youth rarely goes to visit as he does not know what to expect from his father. [ 25 ] The father is fine with having his son under the care of a foster family as he acknowledges that he is not always the best role model for him. Analysis and decision [ 26 ] The adolescent wants to go back with his aunt as she is close family. He explains that he was having problems in school because he was bullied by other kids.

However he never discussed that matter with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 27 ] He acknowledges that in July there were some problems at his aunt’s but that she had reassured him about the fact that there was enough money and food. [ 28 ] He has spent eight days in a rehabilitation center and says that now he has understood. He is ready to go back with his aunt and not with a stranger as a foster family. [ 29 ] According to the applicant the youth has to learn things before going back in a foster home. He has to learn to respect rules and to adopt a routine. He has to go to school on a regular basis as well.

Finally he has to finish performing his community hours. [ 30 ] The evidence is preponderant that the youth’s security or development is still in danger. The evidence demonstrates that he has very important difficulties to live in a non structured environment. His aunt cannot provide him the structure that he needs. [ 31 ] In January 2016, the youth was already displaying very serious behavioural disturbance. Mrs C was ready to help him. The Court wrote the following [1] : [11] Moreover, it would be unfortunate if X didn’t seize the opportunity given to him by his aunt.

He must reflect on his behavior, learn to accept authority and comply with rules. [ 32 ] Obviously the youth did not seize that opportunity and maybe was not ready for it. On the other hand his aunt could not provide him all the necessary things he needed even if she tried. [ 33 ] In January 2016, the Court emphasized as well on the father’s denial about his alcohol problem and his son’s needs to have a strong father figure.

Then the Court ordered the father to seek counselling for his drugs and alcohol addiction. [ 34 ] The Court does not know what is the father’s situation about his addiction as this information was not provided by either party. [ 35 ] The Court concludes that a period of two months in a rehabilitation center followed by a reintegration in a foster family will be in the adolescent’s best interest. For these reasons the Court:

[ 36 ] Grants partly the application; [ 37 ] maintains that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2000, is still in danger under the Law; [ 38 ] orders that X be entrusted in a rehabilitation center for a period of two months, followed by a progressive reintegration of the youth in a foster family; [ 39 ] orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 40 ] orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his family; [ 41 ] orders that the father participates actively in the measures ordered; [ 42 ] recommends the father to get counselling for his drug and alcohol consumption for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 43 ] orders the father to be sober and not use drugs in the presence of his son; [ 44 ] orders that the youth attends school on a regular basis; [ 45 ] orders that the visits between the youth, his father and his aunt be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and in the presence of a third party if judged necessary; [ 46 ] orders the father to report at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 47 ] ORDERS any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the youth’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this judgment. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the youth Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 7, 2016