r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 6477

Protection de la jeunesse — 162634 2016 QCCQ 6477 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004901-156 DATE: March 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 1999 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In the situation of the adolescent, the Court pronounces a judgment on August 6, 2015 declaring the application of various protective measures in reason of a situation of serious behavioural disturbance.

Within the one year order, the Court entrusts the adolescent to a rehabilitation center for 6 months. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a modified motion for revision of this decision, alleging that the continued intensity of the adolescent’s problematic behaviours requires that he remain in the structured environment of a rehabilitation center and this, until his majority. [ 3 ] The parents, although duly served of the proceedings are absent. To the case worker, the parents indicate being overwhelmed by the situation and not wanting to be present at the hearing.

They confirm their agreement to the orientation proposed by the Director. The Court proceeds in the best interests of the adolescent. [ 4 ] The adolescent consigns his admissions and accepts the measures, understanding that he cannot return home at the present time. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] Since July 2015, the adolescent resides in a rehabilitation center. The parties agree to various goals and to the rules structuring the visits home, which include abstinence from drug use, no violence and not leaving the home.

The adolescent further agrees to see a psychologist and attend meetings with a drug rehabilitation worker. [ 7 ] Since that time, the adolescent attends weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, to which he adds meetings with the Centre de readaptation en dependence A .

He pursues a psychological follow-up. [ 8 ] Although the parents report that the weekend visitation is positive, the Director learns in November that the adolescent is not respecting the rules established as to the weekend visitation, particularly as to his substance abuse. [ 9 ] His evolution remains arduous until the end of 2015 with numerous problematic remaining a live issue, especially in the rehabilitation center setting. More specifically, the following behaviours are observed: • Failure to respect the rules and tasks in the rehabilitation center;

• Denial of having drug consumption issues; • Declaring wanting to pursue using marijuana; • Delinquent behaviours (theft, bullying) • Running away from the center for an extended period; • Expulsion from school in reason of his lack of participation; [ 10 ] At the approach of the end of the period of placement, the adolescent begins functioning well and shows motivation to receiving services. He maintains his participation in school, as to his follow-ups and submits himself to random drug tests. [ 11 ] As such, the rehabilitation center, psychologist and school authorities all recommend that X return home.

The parents agree to begin a progressive reintegration, under the stated proviso that they will consistently apply established rules and consequences. [ 12 ] On February 4, 2016, the Court endorses such a reintegration as of February 26. [ 13 ] As of this judgment, the adolescent’s behaviours spin out of control. On the subsequent weekend access, he consumes a myriad of drugs and alcohol at a friend’s home.

The mother finds her son unconscious and, unable to establish a pulse or breathing, the father has recourse to reanimation techniques. [ 14 ] Upon returning to consciousness, the adolescent becomes enraged and uses a hammer to damage the home. He is also verbally abusive, denies having a drug consumption problem and blames his parents for his placement. [ 15 ] This incident clearly defines for the parents that they are overwhelmed by the intensity of X’s issues and consequently unable to respond to his need for consistent structure.

They revise their position and request that their son remain in a rehabilitation center until his majority. [ 16 ] X decides to have recourse to an intensive follow-up as to his drug abuse and was consequently admitted to a residential therapy ([centre A]) as of February 23, 2016 for a 6-month program. He shows potential despite his uneven participation and some attitude issues. Declaring that his primary goal is to deal with his drug consumption, he states being uncertain whether he will pursue in this 6- month program.

He considers that a shorter program would be more “ convenient” . [ 17 ] In conjunction with various diagnoses which already affect his functioning (oppositional defiance disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity and traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder), the adolescent’s substance abuse further restricts his availability for the successful application of protective measures. [ 18 ] To this end, the adolescent correctly targets the primary objective as being to attain and maintain his sobriety.

It is only at this point that he will become available to working on the other underlying issues affecting his development. Substantial efforts will be required to respond to these issues and further promote his autonomy, which will be attained shortly. [ 19 ] The Court retains that the adolescent faces significant challenges which require his continued placement in a structured environment.

For him to advance, it is necessary that he offer concrete and sincere efforts that are founded by recognition of the fact that his future is intimately bound to his capacity to adopt socially acceptable behaviours and respect the norms in place. [ 20 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbances.

The Court further endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the adolescent's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 21 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion for revision of a Court decision; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbance; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his parents be following agreement between the parties; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child's regard to put an end at the situation; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent partake in the follow-up regarding his drug consumption and his mental health; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent pursue his drug rehabilitation program at [centre A]; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 31 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until his majority on [...], 2017;

[ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: March 31, 2016