2016 QCCQ 13919, 2016 QCCQ 13919

Protection de la jeunesse — 166282 2016 QCCQ 13919 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No. 610-41-000241-042 DATE: September 1, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in his capacity as person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre integré de santé et de services sociaux, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A, [...] Applicant and A, domiciled and residing at [...] in Town A, district A, [...] Mother and B, domiciled and residing at [...] in Town B, district A, [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 filed an application for the review and extension of a decision rendered by Justice McKenna on February 4, 2016, concerning X, born on [...], 2003, by which the adolescent was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until July 6, 2016. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother was present. The applicant spoke with the father on the morning of the hearing. He did not intend to attend the hearing.

He informed the applicant of his consent to the Director’s recommendations. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present case does not raise any litigious issue since the adolescent and his mother consent to the Director’s recommendations. FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The evidence reveals that X’s behaviour has improved in a rehabilitation centre. He also does well in school. [ 5 ] In early May, a foster family living on the reservation A, expressed an interest in taking care of X. The foster mother, C, was the foster family of Y, X’s brother.

The first visit was a positive experience and after the second visit, the adolescent was fully committed to the project of going to live with this foster family. [ 6 ] Both parents support the project of placement in the foster family of C. The parents recognize that they still struggle with personal difficulties. [ 7 ] In order to be sure of the adolescent’s adaptation to his new environment, the applicant recommended a placement for a period of eight months. The Court believed that it would be preferable to order a period of placement that included all the school year.

All parties agreed with the extension of the period of placement, until June 30, 2017. [ 8 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and development of the adolescent remain in danger. In addition, the Director’s recommendations are appropriate to work on a life project for the adolescent, who will take the next year to adapt to his new environment.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] GRANTS the application; [ 10 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 11 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of C until June 30, 2017; [ 12 ] ORDERS that an organization provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents until June 30, 2017; [ 13 ] ORDERS that contact between the parents and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for its modalities, frequency and length, and with the presence of a third party; [ 14 ] ORDERS that both parents not use any drugs or alcohol in presence of the child; [ 15 ] ORDERS that both parents ensure that the child is not in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 18 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection to see to the execution of the decision rendered by the Court. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Peggy Warolin For the child Mtre. Julie Lemire For the petitioner A Representing herself Date of hearing: August 2, 2016