2012 QCCQ 13006, 2012 QCCQ 13006

Protection de la jeunesse — 124738 2012 QCCQ 13006 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-000615-036 DATE: August 16, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on […], 1996 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A, working in Town A Applicant v.

A , deceased Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by the Honourable Nancy McKenna on November 29, 2011 concerning the youth X born on […], 1996. The applicant is seeking a placement in a Reception centre for a period of six (6) months. [ 2 ] The youth is present and represented by a lawyer.

The grand-mother who supported the child is allowed to be present at the hearing. [ 3 ] The application is not contested by the youth except for the duration of the placement. She agrees to be placed for a period of four (4) months instead of six (6) months. II – THE FACTS [ 4 ] For the first three months of the placement at the group home, the youth adapted very well. She had no significant problem to respect the rules. [ 5 ] Despite this improvement, it was difficult for her to collaborate with the Youth Protection Worker. She refused to talk.

However she established during the first months of her placement some trustful relationship with the educators at the group home. [ 6 ] The situation started to deteriorate in January 2012. She started to disobey the group home rules and began running away on many occasions. From February 16 to April 4, she spent only 9 days at the group home out of a possible 39 days. [ 7 ] During her runaway, she put herself in danger by drinking alcohol, consuming drugs and getting into fights. [ 8 ] On April 4, 2012 she was transferred to Town B for an intensive supervision.

She reacted very intensively to that transfer and went into a crisis. She was physically aggressive and had a suicidal threat. [ 9 ] She was brought to the hospital to be assessed for her suicidal ideas. She refused to talk with Dr. Nadeau, a pedopsychiatrist. The conclusion of the assessment is the following : […] Imp no diagnosis can be made at present time, as patient refused to talk to us, likely adjustment disorder with mood and behaviour difficulties. Pte complicated grieving process. Will likely become more clear as she hopefully will start to engage more into talking to staff.

Has been in GH only for 2 months. Plan : Recommend enforcing improving alliance between group home staff and patient. ▫ Contact DYP ▫ Refer to MD for rassessement of mood in 2 months

Will reassess PRN - Can be put back on list. […] [ 10 ] She stayed in Town B between April 4 and April 26, 2012. She behaved generally well in that structured environment. III – MEASURES APPLICABLE [ 11 ] As previously mentioned the D.Y.P. asks for an extension of placement at the group home for a period of six (6) months. [ 12 ] In the case at the bar, the evidence shows that the youth's behaviour rapidly regressed, probably linked with her difficult grieving process. She will need to find a way to cope with her pain other than using drugs and alcohol. [ 13 ] As recommended by Dr.

Nadeau, it will be important to enforce therapeutic alliance between her and group home educators. To accept help that she needs to overcome her difficulties. [ 14 ] The Court is of the opinion that the period of six (6) months will be necessary to develop a trustful relationship with the group home staff. According to the Youth Protection Act a reintegration in a foster home will be possible after four (4) months if the situation allows it.

The collaboration of X will be an important factor to determine the length of the placement in the group home. [ 15 ] The plan proposed by the D.Y.P. respects the best interest of the teenager. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 17 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the youth X, born on […], 1996 still in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the placement of the youth in a Reception Centre (group home) be for a period of six (6) months with the possibility of a reintegration in the foster family after four (4) months, if the situation allows it; [ 20 ] ORDERS that contacts between the youth and her grand-parents be supervised by the D.Y.P.; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the youth receive professional help required by her situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the youth and her grand-parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth X and her family until her majority; [ 24 ] ORDERS that contacts between siblings and other significant people to the youth be encouraged; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police collaboration in the execution of this order; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall see to the execution of the enactment. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE, J.Q.C. Me Yan Massé For the youth Me Gabriel Gaudreault For the applicant Date of hearing : June 5, 2012