2017 QCCQ 18052, 2017 QCCQ 18052

Protection de la jeunesse — 178531 2017 QCCQ 18052 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-032740-177 DATE : August 23, 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 38, 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 declare that the security or the development of the child X is endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide health care. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the father trivialised the seriousness of the child’s suicidal ideations and therefore failed to obtain appropriate mental health services.

The mother expressed being unaware that her child was demonstrating difficulties of this nature. [ 3 ] The Director is asking that the child be entrusted to the care of his parents in accordance with a child custody agreement filed in Superior Court along with a social and psychological follow-up for a period of nine months. [ 4 ] The majority of the allegations are admitted by the parents who consent to the measures proposed. [ 5 ] Through his lawyer, the child expresses his agreement with the measures proposed.

The State of Endangerment [ 6 ] The parents separated after a three year relationship that ended shortly after the birth of the child. They have a custody arrangement providing that X spends every week with his father and every weekend with his mother. Holidays and vacations are also provided for. [ 7 ] The Director’s investigation into the signalement establishes the following: [ 8 ] As a result of various incidents in school, staff members contacted the child’s father on several occasions to discuss concerns regarding X’s behaviour.

Essentially, it was observed that he: - showed symptoms of depression; - expressed suicidal thoughts; - misbehaved in class;

- was ostracized by his peers; - struggled academically. [ 9 ] The father was urged to bring the child to the hospital for a psychological evaluation. Nonetheless, he failed to follow through with the request, being of the opinion that the school was racially discriminating against his son.

Furthermore, he refused to consent to any other form of community service, believing it unnecessary despite concerns that the child was exhibiting symptoms of learning difficulties. [ 10 ] During the course of the Director’s evaluation, the father demonstrated a lack of cooperation based on the belief that the Director’s intervention was unjustified. [ 11 ] The Director’s investigation further revealed ongoing parental conflict that likely contributes to the child’s mental health issues.

During conversations with the worker, the father tended to focus more on his perception of the mother’s flaws than on his son’s difficulties. [ 12 ] The mother explained that she was never made aware of the child’s suicidal ideations. Expressing concern, she has since brought her son to the hospital. An initial assessment highlights parent/child relationship problems and possible adjustment disorder.

According to the social worker, further assessment is required to “… rule out psychological abuse, parental alienation, learning disabilities and ADHD. [1] ” The child is currently awaiting a comprehensive evaluation at the Jewish General Hospital. Furthermore, a referral was made for services at the CLSC. [ 13 ] In addition, the mother expresses concerns regarding the structure provided at home by the father. She believes that her son is often left to fend for himself for extended periods of time. [ 14 ] Recently, the child has been briefly assessed by a school psychologist.

The ensuing report indicates that the child “…displays signs of impulsivity, hyperactivity, attention difficulties, and learning difficulties. [2] ” [ 15 ] In conversation with the worker, the child had difficulty opening up about his feelings pertaining to his family and appeared caught in a conflict of loyalty when the subject of custody was discussed. Analysis and Conclusion [ 16 ] The evidence demonstrates that the child has expressed a level of distress that required immediate action. The school voiced their concerns and informed the father that intervention was required.

This position was justified based on the teacher’s observations of the child’s behaviour. [ 17 ] The father’s response was essentially confrontational.

All suggestions of psychological difficulties were denied and consequently, any services proposed were refused. [ 18 ] Although the father states that he now understands the extent of his son’s problems, his lack of response did in fact endanger X’s security and development. [ 19 ] Considering the admissions of the parties and the information contained in the Court report filed into evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are endangered for the reasons alleged by the Director.

The Measures [ 20 ] The Director is asking to entrust the child to his parents in accordance with a custody agreement previously filed in Superior Court, along with a social follow up and health services for a period of nine months. [ 21 ] The objective of the Director’s intervention is to ensure that the child receives the services required both regarding his mental health and his academic difficulties.

Furthermore, questions remain regarding the sufficiency of the structure offered by each parent at home as well as the child’s possible exposure to parental conflict. [ 22 ] The evidence leaves no doubt that X is in need of professional assistance.

It is imperative that the father maintain a level of cooperation that will allow the implementation of the various services required without delay. [ 23 ] Furthermore, both parents should address the conflict that clearly lies between them to ensure that X is no longer caught in the middle, something that blatantly contributes to his distress. [ 24 ] After considering all of the evidence, and taking into account the consent of the parties, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest. [ 25 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide health care; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his parents in accordance with the Superior Court agreement filed under D-4 or any other agreement by the parties; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents follow through with recommendations of the professionals involved with their son including

recommendations of a psychological evaluation which is currently pending at the Jewish General Hospital; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to receive and exchange information with treating professionals in the interest of the child; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents cooperate with the professionals involved; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the child receive additional academic support through school liaison; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On August 30, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 23, 2017 KO/lf