r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 12627

Protection de la jeunesse — 165491 2016 QCCQ 12627 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004195-122 DATE: March 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2000 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a Court decision concerning X.

The motion alleges that the adolescent requires the structure and neutrality of a rehabilitation center in order to ensure her development and respond to her complex behavioural issues.

The Director seeks the application of protective measures until the adolescent’s majority. [ 2 ] Both the mother and the adolescent contest the measures and ultimately, seek the end of the Director’s implication. [ 3 ] Context [ 4 ] In virtue of the preceding judgment dating August 8, 2014, the Court orders the application of various protective measures for a period of one year in reason of neglect on the physical level and psychological ill-treatment.

More notably, the Court entrusts the adolescent to a rehabilitation center and provides contacts with her mother following mutual agreement. [ 5 ] In the group home environment, the adolescent shows significant improvements as to her daily functioning and this, on all levels. However, she continues to have a tendency to challenge the limits, negotiate and have conflicts with peers.

Various incidents occur which demonstrate a lack of judgment and difficulties in ability to manage her emotional outbursts. [ 6 ] In September 2014, the Director retains that the security and the development of the adolescent are in also in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbance. [ 7 ] The mother cooperates fully with the intervention and actively applies means destined to address her daughter’s behavioural issues, which are also present during the contacts. [ 8 ] During the summer period of 2015, the parties agree to work towards the reintegration of the adolescent in her home environment and this, although her behavioural issues are still present and she shows uneven progress.

Able to show improvements in her overall functioning despite some incidents of crisis, X and her mother maintain their wish to reunite. [ 9 ] On September 2, 2015, the Court returns the adolescent to her maternal environment on a provisional basis by consent of the parties. Numerous services are put in place to shoulder this reintegration, including an educator. [ 10 ] In October, the adolescent commences therapy through Santé mentale jeunesse . [ 11 ] After an initial period of calm, the adolescent begins to demonstrate the behavioural issues which challenge her environment,

namely impulsiveness, lying, manipulation and opposition. There is also a recurrence as to her hygiene, a situation which had been resolved in the past. [ 12 ] On December 7, 2015, the Court declares that the security and the development of the adolescent remain in danger in reason of neglect of basis physical needs, psychological ill-treatment and serious behavioural disturbance. [ 13 ] The parties agree to interim measures in order to further structure the family dynamic and clarify the adolescent’s ability to function adequately in her home environment.

A contract of rules is put in place stipulating namely that the adolescent and the mother use a communication book to resolve conflicts and that no form of violence will be tolerated. [ 14 ] At the end of December, the mother offers an overview of the situation, stating that as soon as the hearing had passed, her daughter ceased offering efforts and the situation degenerated. Specifically, her daughter stops taking her medication. There are repeated incidents of violent and physical aggressiveness.

The communication booklet is not used properly or not in a good way as X will write things because the educator will read it, but it doesn’t conform to reality. [ 15 ] The mother starts counting her daughter’s pills to verify if she is taking her medication on a regular basis. X states that she takes her medication only when she feels she needs it, mostly at school or for cadets. [ 16 ] The mother mentions not understanding the regression of her daughter. She feels that she is making the necessary efforts, but doesn’t see any results. The Director observes that the mother is transparent and collaborative.

Her interventions towards her daughter are adequate. [ 17 ] In her school environment and her cadet activities, the adolescent maintains a positive involvement. Her results are good and she establishes satisfactory relationships with her peers. [ 18 ] The mother/daughter relationship remains fraught with conflicts as they both struggle to find equilibrium in the family dynamic. Nonetheless, it is possible to ascertain fundamental changes in the last months. [ 19 ] Since March 8, two conflicts occur between X and her mother.

They were able to deal with these issues independently and discuss in a calm manner. [ 20 ] The caseworker sees that the adolescent is more receptive to the interventions, possibly because she is regularly taking her medication. [ 21 ] The mother indicates that she thinks the situation is under control and that she has blossomed as a mother and has found equilibrium with her daughter. She is able to lay down consequences and be able to see it through, without the emotional charge which accompanied her interventions in the past.

She is actively managing her daughter’s medication, which helps her manage her emotions. [ 22 ] X will continue with her psychology and psychiatry supplied with the CLSC. [ 23 ] Both the adolescent and her mother anticipate that there will be difficulties, but feels that they can address the issues in a positive manner. [ 24 ] The Director considers that the adolescent’s best interests dictate that she return to the structure of the rehabilitation center, where she was progressing well.

The adolescent’s personal issues are too overwhelming to consider that her family environment will be able to cope with these on an ongoing basis. The Director cites that the history of the intervention demonstrates a recurrent degeneration of the adolescent’s behaviours in the family environment. [ 25 ] Analysis and decision [ 26 ] It is important to recall the issues having led to the situation of endangerment. Initially, the relationship between X and her mother was greatly challenged by the mother’s inability to comprehend and then deal with the complexities of her daughter’s behaviours.

This led to a family dynamic that overwhelmed X and her mother and spiralled into the situation of endangerment of serious behavioural disturbances, neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 27 ] X’s behaviours are and will continue to be, a challenge for her as well as for her environments. Diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder and reaction attachment disorder, she requires clear and predictable structuring in order to function adequately. At home, the emotional content arising from her problematic behaviours only serves to accentuate these.

In the past, this has been the principle impediment to the effective application of measures in the family environment. [ 28 ] The Court is convinced that this is no longer an issue. The mother understands the need to detach herself from her daughter’s outbursts, which in turn helps X to focus on the need for her to manage herself and use the tools at her disposition.

The mother is more realistic as to her expectations of her daughter and now possesses the necessary parental skills to help X address and overcome her difficulties. [ 29 ] The mother is fully engaged as to her daughter’s needs and there is no doubt that she will remain involved and attentive. [ 30 ] The evidence demonstrates that the adolescent’s situation is at a crossroads.

Both her and the mother have the tools in hand to address any issues which may come forth and they further understand the need to maintain a serene and open communication in order to avoid the frustrations which can be detrimental to the family dynamic. [ 31 ] While maintaining the adolescent in her home environment, the continued application of protective measures will do little to aid or ensure the success of this reintegration. In fact, the opposite is probably the case as the Director’s presence creates anxiety and takes away from the expression of the mother’s authority.

[ 32 ] The stakes are unequivocal in this sink or swim scenario. A further unimpeded degeneration of X’s behaviours will confirm the adolescent’s continued need for structure in a neutral environment. [ 33 ] While recognizing that there remain elements of precariousness, the Court finds that the adolescent’s situation no longer corresponds to a situation of endangerment as defined by the Youth Protection Act. [ 34 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are no longer in danger; __________________________________ 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