r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 6489

Protection de la jeunesse — 162657 2016 QCCQ 6489 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005052-165 DATE: March 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2001 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 adolescent or the adolescent’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 presents a motion for protection concerning the adolescent X, alleging that his security and development are in danger in reason of educational neglect, serious behavioural disturbance and failure to attend school. [ 2 ] While maintaining the adolescent in his home environment, the Director seeks the application of various measures of protection for 9 months, to include his benefitting from specific mental health services and attending school assiduously. [ 3 ] The parents consign their admissions and declare being in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 4 ] Considering the adolescent’s situation, his attorney declares a legal mandate.

After evaluating the evidence, she consents to the conclusions of the motion and asks that the Court further recommend that the family benefit from the services of an educator. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] X resides with his parents and three younger siblings. [ 7 ] In March 2015, the Director evaluates the situation of the adolescent in regards to a complaint of educational neglect and refusal to attend school. [ 8 ] X’ functioning is deficient on numerous levels. He lacks coping skills and uses avoidance to deal with stressful situations, such as change and emotional conflict.

To this end, he rarely leaves the family home and usually actively avoids social interaction with persons outside his family environment. [ 9 ] In April 2014, X receives a diagnosis of selective muteness and generalized anxiety. There is a further recommendation that X benefit from an autism spectrum disorder evaluation and attend an outpatient day program with the Douglas Hospital. He is on a waiting list. [ 10 ] For the last years, the adolescent’s academic performance is also problematic.

His school attendance is irregular as of March 2014 and from January to June 2015, he ceases to attend any classes. [ 11 ] Presently, he is attending school within sports study program (hockey). He is able to leave the house in order to attend his hockey practices and games as well as attend activities with his father, but as to his classes, he is still not presenting himself on a regular basis.

[ 12 ] Although the parents concur as to the seriousness of their son’s situation, they often disagree as to the appropriate steps to correct his difficulties. The mother is protective of her son and considers that a change of school will respond to his needs. The father believes his son suffers from a mental health disorder, but usually defers to his spouse as the primary caregiver. [ 13 ] At present, the adolescent doesn’t participate in various services put in place, refusing to leave the house or respond to his parent’s authority in this regard.

A referral to Santé mentale jeunesse remains in suspense, as the adolescent is steadfast in refusing to attend scheduled appointments. [ 14 ] The mother seeks advice from mental health professionals, but fails to apply different options put forth to support her son’s return to his school environment and deal with his overwhelming anxieties. [ 15 ] The parents cooperate generally well with the evaluation process, but remain guarded as to the application of measures. [ 16 ] An educator has been assigned to the family, but the adolescent’s anxiety and muteness impede the effectiveness of services.

There is suspension of the services until such time as the adolescent is more receptive and available. [ 17 ] The adolescent’s development stagnates before the intensity of his social anxieties.

Although the parents are aware of their son’s difficulties and wish to aid him, their efforts have been largely ineffectual in reason of a lack of cohesion and determination to fully address his issues. [ 18 ] The persistence of this situation, especially in regards to his receiving schooling, further underlines the situation of endangerment and the need to accompany him and his family through the application of protective measures in order to promote his normal functioning as well as ensure his return to regular attendance in his school environment. [ 19 ] The intervention aims to: • Improve the adolescent’s social skills; • Help him better deal with change; • Establish a web of support services; • Establish consistent parenting; • Pursue his academics; • Promote the parents working as a team in addressing their son’s issues and seeking services; [ 20 ] The mother testifies as to her intention to fully cooperate with the application of the protective measures.

She requests the services of an educator as well as a follow-up through Santé mentale jeunesse, believing that a conjunction of these services will help X move forward. She states that her son is now more collaborative and verbalizes wanting help. He has recently said wanting to attend adult education. [ 21 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger for the reasons invoked by the Director.

The Court endorses the measures suggested, which are the reflection of the adolescent's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 22 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are in danger for the following reasons: neglect on educational level, serious behavioural disturbance and not attending or being frequently absent of school; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain with his family; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents report every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their adolescent's regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the adolescent is in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and his family for a period of 9 months; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive certain health care and health services, namely an evaluation with Santé mentale jeunesse , as well as a follow-up as recommended, if such is the case; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school assiduously and that the parents make the necessary efforts that he do so; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the services of an educator be offered to the adolescent and his family; [ 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