r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 12567

Protection de la jeunesse — 152457 2015 QCCQ 12567 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004529-130 DATE: March 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] , 1999 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 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 ] Context [ 2 ] On August 7, 2014, the Court renders a decision in regards to the situation of X, prolonging protective measures for one year in reason of her serious behavioural disturbances.

More specifically, the Court maintains the adolescent in a rehabilitation center and provides for contacts with her parents following mutual agreement between the parties. [ 3 ] In December 2014, the adolescent petitions the Court to revise this order, citing a positive evolution of her situation which permits that she be entrusted to her father’s care.

On December 18, by consent of the parties, the Court renders a provisional order granting this request, while maintaining the status quo of the other measures. [ 4 ] In the interim, the Director of Youth Protection also presents a motion for revision and extension. On March 20, 2015, there is a hearing on the Director’s request to revise the provisional measures and entrust the adolescent to a rehabilitation center.

The Court maintains the provisional measures, but suspends the mother’s access, determining that these contacts impede the adolescent’s functioning in her paternal environment. [ 5 ] At the final hearing date, the adolescent withdraws her motion for revision. [ 6 ] Position of the parties [ 7 ] The Director seeks the revision of the protective measures, within the same time-frame stipulated in the last order, namely until August 8, 2015.

More specifically, the Director recommends that the adolescent remain with her father, that the contacts with her mother be suspended, and that the Court order that the mother not interfere in the establishment of contacts between the adolescent and her sisters. [ 8 ] The adolescent and the father agree to this orientation. Through her attorney, X underlines that she considers that her remaining with her father and the suspension of the contacts with her mother are the most pertinent elements of the protective measures. [ 9 ] As to the mother, she also declares being in agreement with the measures.

She stipulates that she no longer wishes to be involved with her daughter, as she lives with her father. The mother specifically agrees to the suspension of her contacts with her daughter. [ 10 ] As to her participation in the measures, the mother indicated being dissatisfied with interventions of the caseworker presently

assigned to her daughter’s situation and insists that her collaboration is contingent to a change in this regard. [ 11 ] Analysis and decision [ 12 ] Until December 2014, the adolescent continues to evolve in a rehabilitation center. In this structured and neutral environment, she shows significant improvement as to her behaviours, judgment and her emotional responses. [ 13 ] Initially both parents cooperate positively with the intervention. [ 14 ] The adolescent spends progressively more time in her paternal environment, considering the orientation towards an eventual return in this milieu.

The parties put in place a contract of rules, in view of transferring the structure of the rehabilitation center. Overall, the situation is positive, with the adolescent being able to maintain her progress with her father, who applies the tools presented to him and actively seeks advice. [ 15 ] As to the contacts with her mother, the visits progress in function of this positive evolution.

Visits at her domicile are permitted as of November 2014 in view of her implication and receptivity to the protective measures. [ 16 ] Concurrently, there is an overall improvement of the parent’s communication which had beforehand been very difficult and conflictual. [ 17 ] This all changes as of the adolescent’s reintegration with her father. [ 18 ] The previous dynamic existing between the adolescent and her mother quickly reinstates itself. The mother is unable to shoulder her daughter’s reintegration and fuels the loyalty conflict.

Her cooperation with the caseworker wanes and she refuses to participate in the elaboration of a calendar of contacts, as well as denigrating the social services. [ 19 ] X suffers from this situation as well as the emotional and physical rejection from her mother. Her anxiety spikes and her behaviours regress. Conflicts arise with her father and she shows disinvestment in school and her environment. [ 20 ] On February 10, 2015, the adolescent makes a suicide attempt by ingesting medication.

She later cites looking for attention from her mother. [ 21 ] A few weeks after, an altercation occurs with the mother which justifies a police intervention. [ 22 ] As of the suspension of the adolescent’s contacts with her mother, she is able to renew her focus on her projects. She is seen to be less anxious and the relationship with her father improves.

She is presently looking for employment and registers for adult education classes to commence in September 2015. [ 23 ] The evidence demonstrates that the adolescent’s functioning is negatively affected by her relationship with her mother and this, on a chronic basis. Although the Director of Youth Protection intervenes to affect change as to the mother/daughter dynamic, there is little success, as the mother remains overwhelmed by the emotional content of the conflictual relationship with the father.

Her cooperation wanes and at that point, her actions become counter-productive to the protective measures and further impede her daughter’s progress. [ 24 ] As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the suspension of the adolescent’s contacts with her mother is dictated by her best interests. She has shown her inability to preserve herself from the negative elements of this relationship and as such, these contacts are not beneficial, as well as detracting her from a healthy development.

The mother not being available to cooperate towards the establishment of harmonious contacts, there is no viable alternative to a suspension. [ 25 ] Although the mother insists that the caseworker change before she will offer her cooperation, the evidence justifies that this is not the source of the problematic. Furthermore, the facts demonstrate that the caseworker has completed her mandate in a professional and respectful manner. Overall, it is the mother’s dynamic and failure to integrate her

part in the situation of endangerment that remains the principal source of the problems faced by the intervention. [ 26 ] X has a good relationship with the caseworker and trust is established.

Both the adolescent and the father insist that it is important that there be no change in this regard. [ 27 ] For all these reasons, the Court refrains from any recommendation as to the replacement of the caseworker. [ 28 ] After taking into consideration the parties' admissions, the testimonies as well as the documentary evidence, the Court considers that the allegations in the proceeding are proven to its satisfaction and furthermore, give rise to the measures sought. [ 29 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion for revision and extension of a Court order; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 32 ] REVISES the decision rendered on August 7, 2014; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain in her paternal milieu; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family;

[ 35 ] ORDERS that the parties actively participate in the application of the measures; [ 36 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the adolescent and her mother; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother not interfere in the contacts between the adolescent and her sisters; [ 38 ] TAKES ACT that within the next seven (7) days the adolescent will remit to the caseworker a cellular phone (Iphone 5C black and white), which is the property of the mother. The caseworker will return this phone to the mother, who will concurrently remit to the caseworker the adolescent's social insurance card and passport.

The caseworker will have the mandate of returning these objects to their rightful owners; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until August 8, 2015; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: March 20, 2015