2018 QCCQ 11519, 2018 QCCQ 11519

Protection de la jeunesse — 181338 2018 QCCQ 11519 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000483-153 DATE: March 15, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2002 Adolescent -and- A -and- 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on February 6, 2017, in respect of the adolescent. They request that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation center. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the adolescent are present and both represented by a lawyer. The father is absent and not represented, even if duly notified with the proceedings. [ 3 ] The mother agrees with most of the facts of the application.

Concerning the amended recommendations of the DYP, she refuses for her son to go to [Center A]. She wishes his return to her care as of April 1, 2018, as initially requested the DYP. She agrees that he will be entrusted to a rehabilitation center until then. She consents with the filing of the reports to value as testimony of their authors, even if she disagrees with some parts of their contents. [ 4 ] The adolescent’s counsel expresses his opposition to his placement in a rehabilitation center for as long as requested by the DYP.

He shares the same position as the mother on that matter, as well as for [Center A]. [ 5 ] The DYP has been involved with the family for many years. Looking into the past judgments rendered, we can notice that the youth has been experiencing behavioral issues for a long period of time. [ 6 ] On January 21, 2016, an order was rendered entrusting the adolescent to his parents. At the time, he was placed in a rehabilitation center.

The decision for his return to his parents was due to the fact that the parents assured, that they could provide him some structure and consistency. [ 7 ] It did not take long for the situation to worsen. On August 3, 2016, another Court order was pronounced entrusting again the adolescent to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months. In this judgment, the situation was as follows: “[5] Since the last Court order, the situation of the child has worsened. He does not respect the adult decisions and challenges with negations, especially with the mother.

They have daily confrontations about the difference of treatment and rules between her household and that of the father’s. [6] The child’s behaviour is not improving. The child does not act the same while at his father’s or at his mother’s. For example, at his father’s, he takes his medication but not while at his mother’s. The child demonstrates more maturity when in the father’s care.

[7] The mother regularly calls the emergency line and relies on Social Services intervention almost every week. Usually it is about the child being too aggressive, argumentative and disrespectful or to having confrontational behaviours towards her. […] [12] The evidence is completed by the testimony of the social worker. She expresses her opinion in regards to the action that the child will have to improve his behaviour in order to be back with the parents.

Such as learning to respect them, to follow the rules at home and cease the consumption of drugs. [1] » [ 8 ] On February 6, 2017, the adolescent was entrusted to his father because he was showing some improvement in his behavior. He was still impulsive but he evolved positively during the past months. The adolescent was meeting with an addiction counselor on a regular basis and taking his medication. At the time, the relationship with his father was good but the relationship was more challenging regarding the mother. [ 9 ] At the beginning of December 2017, once again the adolescent’s situation deteriorated.

He had behavioral problems at his father’s home and was not attending school. He was also seen roaming in [Community A] without any outdoor clothing or footwear. When met, he appeared intoxicated. [ 10 ] At that time, he was pressured by the previous youth delegate to undergo a drug test or else he will be sent to a rehabilitation center ([Rehabilitation Center A]), so he accepted. The results came back positive for marijuana, cocaine and buprenorphine.

The adolescent denies taking anything other than marijuana. [ 11 ] Furthermore, the adolescent was suspended twice for six days because he was disruptive, defiant, leaving school without explanation and was disrespectful towards the staff. [ 12 ] An emergency measure was applied entrusting him to a rehabilitation center considering his behavioral problems. The measures were extended until the present hearing. The adolescent is still, at this time, residing at the rehabilitation center. [ 13 ] The youth delegate testifies about the new facts which occurred since his written report done on December 21, 2017.

The collaboration of the mother is difficult and he feels that she perceives him as the enemy and that she does not trust him. The mother communicates through [Unit A] to get information instead of the youth delegate. [ 14 ] In his psychosocial report, the youth delegate expressed his opinion about the mother, which the Court shares, as hereby reproduce: “The mother is also not being realistic about her son’s addiction and believes that by keeping him at the center would do more damage.

The mother is minimizing the negative behaviors that the adolescent has been exhibiting over the past few months such as not attending school or that the adolescent is smoking marihuana. [2] » [ 15 ] While living with his father they had issues and behavioral problems. His father had a hard time imposing rules to his son, as well as when he was living with his mother. [ 16 ] At the center, the adolescent adopts a defensive attitude when discussing his outings and the rules enforced in regards to them. [ 17 ] Many the adolescent’s outings were cancelled because of his behavior.

He is defiant and does not listen to anyone. At his mother’s home, he does not respect her spouse nor the rules. [ 18 ] The adolescent consumes more cannabis than an average person, still he denies having a drug addiction. On December 2017, after an outing at his mother, he came back to the center under the influence of drugs. [ 19 ] The adolescent is described as being his own person and becomes defensive when questioned in [Unit A]. He is defiant when he does not get what he wants such as outings.

He has a negative attitude towards regulations and requires structure. [ 20 ] The delegated believes that the youth should benefit from an inpatient residential program to address his substance abuse, since his consumption of marihuana has been increasing. Moreover, he demonstrates that he is now starting to engage in risky behavior such as experimenting cocaine. [ 21 ] Since January 2018, he is back in school and he goes to class. A structure was put in place by [Unit A] in order for him to attend. [ 22 ] The educator working at [Unit A] testifies about how the adolescent he is doing at the center.

He observes that the youth does not make progress. One of the reason is when he goes on outings, he uses drugs. Moreover the youth says openly that he will never stop using. He is in denial about his addictions. [ 23 ] There was also an incident when the adolescent punched another youth because of things he was saying about him. The educator also witnessed that the relationship between the mother and her son seems to evolve. But on the other hand, when he goes on outings mostly at his mother, he does not respect the rules implemented by [Unit A]. [ 24 ] The mother speaks at the hearing.

She thinks that her son will be better at home. She talks about the resources her son would benefit from, if returned home, namely continue his follow-up with an addiction counsel. She can have access to an external educator, if required. [ 25 ] The mother over the years acquired some skills and tools to deal with her son’s diagnosis of a ttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). She explains that her son needs time to digest and sort of everything going on

in his life. [ 26 ] She acknowledges that her son has a drug addiction but she will help him with that matter. She only found out about her son’s consumption in December 2017. However in her opinion, he already diminished his consumption. [ 27 ] When her son comes to visit her she imposes him rules and if those are defied, consequences come with it. Overall, her son, helps her out a lot around the house and does chores.

He is less aggressive towards his brother. [ 28 ] She knows that her son returning home will not be easy on her but she wants a chance to help him out. [ 29 ] The adolescent was also heard, to begin with, he agrees with the Court to order that he submit himself to random drug testing. He admits taking marihuana and having tried other substances but does not intend to do so again. [ 30 ] He does not believe that he has an addiction but wishes to slow it down his consumption. He consumes marihuana about 3 to 4 times a day. He intends to reduce it to only weekends.

Recently, he started to meet with an addiction counsellor. Sometimes at [Unit A], he is asked to do some things but he refuses. [ 31 ] He attends meetings with another intervener with whom he learns the harmful effects of the drugs. His relationship with his mother was rough at first, but for the past six months, it is better. Still, he sometimes has arguments with her. [ 32 ] Regarding his father, he does not have any communication with him since he has been entrusted to the center.

Before this occurred, they had a good relationship. [ 33 ] Even if the mother is very implicated in her son’s life, we cannot set aside the fact that she has other children to care for. Moreover, she works two jobs for which she has to do night shifts. It is impossible for her to keep an eye on her son all the time. The Court believes that the mother really wants to help. The mother and the adolescent think they can do it on their own, but in the Court’s opinion this is more "wishful thinking". [ 34 ] The Court has no doubt that the mother loves her son and wants to take care of him.

However, the mother cannot foresee that her son has a serious addiction problems and issues. Furthermore, he is not getting better, to the contrary. The adolescent requires specialize help. [ 35 ] The mother could not take care of her son on a long-term period with the issues he has. The first week everything will be fine but then the situation will worsen, like before. She reveals that the youth does not respect her husband, even if he does not reside at home full time. How will it go if he returns home, when he does not even follow the center’s rules or any adult rules?

How can we expect he will listen to his mother on a long term basis? [ 36 ] We already see it during his outings with his mom, he goes partying and even comes back to the center under the influence. The mother protects him by not returning him to the center while under the influence. [ 37 ] When the adolescent was entrusted to the mother, she was calling the emergency line to seek help because she was overwhelmed, as mentioned in a previous judgment. [ 38 ] In the past he was living with his father and they had a good relationship but not with his mother.

Now, it is the other way around. [ 39 ] Regarding the youth, the Court does not believe that he really wants to change his ways. When asked by his lawyer why he wants to diminish his use of cannabis, his answer was literally: “I guess because it is not good for young people”.

He seems to answer the question in order to please the Court, but he does not seem sincere. [ 40 ] The Court also noticed while he was answering his lawyer’s questions that he was showing a little bit of attitude towards him, like he did not appreciate this intrusiveness. [ 41 ] The evidence demonstrates that the adolescent is out of control and nothing seems to really work while he is entrusted to either of his parents. [ 42 ] As already mentioned in a previous order, the Court cannot foresee, for the time being, entrusting the adolescent to the mother.

It is very unlikely that it would work out, given the adolescent behavioral problems and his lack of recognizance of it. Furthermore, the mother is not able to neither manage him nor assure a constant supervision due to her other responsibilities. [ 43 ] The adolescent needs a high level of structure and support to help him regulate notably his behavioral and social interactions. The youth has a severe drug addiction (marihuana) neither the mother nor him take this seriously. They both undermine the extent of that issue. The mother environment cannot offer such help.

Moreover it has already been tried in the past and he did not work. [ 44 ] After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence, it shows that the adolescent has a hard time to comply and respect the rules in [Unit A].

We cannot expect that the adolescent will behave when he does not do it in the rehabilitation center neither during his outings nor even when previously entrusted to his mother who constantly called social service for help. [ 45 ] All that being said, the evidence reveals that the security and development of the youth are still in danger. [ 46 ] After reviewing everything, the Court cannot come to another conclusion about the necessity of the placement of the adolescent in a rehabilitation center, for a longer period considering his recurrent ill behaviors and issues not yet addressed.

Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this adolescent. [ 47 ] The Court also expresses her doubts about the adolescent’s return to his mother on June 20, 2018, considering there is no long-

term sustainable or concrete improvement in the adolescent’s situation during the past years. It goes well for a while and he goes back to his old habits. Hopefully this measure will be long enough to achieve positive changes regarding this youth. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 48 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 49 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center designated by the DYP until June 20, 2018; [ 51 ] AUTHORIZES the adolescent to be at [Center A], this conditional to the adolescent’s consent; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to his mother on June 20, 2018; [ 53 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent participate in an addictions assessment and counselling; [ 54 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent receive a psychological assessment and counselling if deemed necessary; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the adolescent participate in random drug testing; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the parents of the adolescent continue to actively participate with an external educator for support in parenting, discipline and structure; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 58 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family until August 31, 2018; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the petitioner Me Alexis Deschênes for the adolescent Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: February 28, 2018