2016 QCCQ 17929, 2016 QCCQ 17929

Protection de la jeunesse — 168844 2016 QCCQ 17929 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030618-151 DATE : May 24, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2000 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on May 24 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision of a decision rendered by the undersigned on February 1 st , 2016.

The Director is asking that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The mother generally admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion and is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director. She adds her concerns that the psychological assessment or follow-up already court ordered has not yet taken place.

She also wishes that the phone calls of the adolescent be monitored. [ 4 ] The adolescent also admits generally all the facts alleged in support of the motion and is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director. The adolescent consents to receiving psychological counselling but is not in agreement with the monitoring of her phone calls. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that the adolescent was doing well in school, in the rehabilitation centre and during her visits at home until April.

[ 6 ] Early April, the youth did not come back from an event she was given permission to attend at Maison des jeunes . It is by coincidence that Mr. C saw her at McDonald's. Informed of the situation, the mother quickly joined her daughter and brought her to the police station. [ 7 ] Due to this incident, it was decided that an extra month of placement would provide time for a gradual reintegration of the adolescent.

Mother and daughter agreed to the extension of placement granted on April 29 th , 2016. [ 8 ] On May 3 rd , 2016, while the adolescent was visiting her mother, she failed to come back home after a short outing to a nearby fast- food restaurant. [ 9 ] It was soon discovered that the adolescent has been in touch with Mr. D, known by the police for sexually exploiting underage girls. [ 10 ] The mother was very proactive in trying to locate her daughter.

On May 8 th , 2016, the youth was brought back to Montreal and placed in a rehabilitation centre. [ 11 ] The adolescent explained that on May 3 rd , 2016, she met a boy for the first time and when she got into his car, she was driven to Toronto. There, she was held against her will and forced to perform sexual acts. The adolescent also readily admitted that she was in contact with D and E, both of them used to be her friends. [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, the Director has established that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised due to her behavioural disturbances.

The recommendations made meet the needs of the adolescent and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still compromised due to her behavioural disturbances; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 14 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six (6) months; [ 15 ] PROHIBITS X to be in contact, directly or indirectly, with D and E; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS to the adolescent to receive psychological counselling; [ 17 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide psychological counselling and assessment if needed, within one (1) month; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS to the adolescent to follow any recommendations that may be made following the substance abuse assessment done in April 2016; [ 19 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that there is no contacts between X and Mr.

C; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing : May 24 th , 2016