2016 QCCQ 17914, 2016 QCCQ 17914

Protection de la jeunesse — 168829 2016 QCCQ 17914 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029807-153 DATE : May 24, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2001 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 July 3 rd , 2015. The Director was asking, on February 4 th , 2016, that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for an interim period of three months.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, on May 24 th , 2016, the Director is asking that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until the end of her academic year (June 23 rd , 2016), that she then be entrusted to the care of her father with continued youth protection involvement for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The mother was only present on February 4 th , 2016. She denied or ignored essentially all of the facts alleged in support of the motion. The mother expressed the wish to have her daughter entrusted to her care.

As she has not been in contact with her lawyer before the conclusion of the inquiry, her final position is not known. [ 4 ] The father has ignored or denied all the facts alleged in support of the motion except that her daughter remained in the group home since July 3 rd , 2015. The father was in agreement with the interim period of placement suggested in February. He also is in agreement with the continued involvement of the Director for a period of nine months but would like his daughter to be returned to his care immediately.

[ 5 ] The adolescent has admitted some of the facts pertaining to her behavioural disturbances alleged in support of the motion. Although she had reservations about the interim period of placement requested by the Director in February (she wished for her integration home during that period of time), she expresses clearly, at the conclusion of the inquiry, her desire to be entrusted to the care of her father immediately. She consents to the continued involvement of the Director for a period of nine months.

CONTEXT [ 6 ] It appears from the evidence and the admissions made by the adolescent that serious behavioural disturbances continued to be observed. [ 7 ] When the Court was seized of the motion for revision, the adolescent often had outbursts in the group home, was often arriving late and exhibiting challenging behaviours at school. [ 8 ] Following the court order extending her placement in rehabilitation centre on an interim basis, the adolescent made positive gains and her situation improved substantially. [ 9 ] During the spring break, she was allowed to join her paternal aunt and family for a trip to Florida.

Upon her return, the father noted positive changes in her daughter's attitude. [ 10 ] The adolescent has visited each parent on weekends. [ 11 ] In March 2016, the family agreed to participate in the Family Ties Program.

Only the father and adolescent did participate in the program as the mother was out of the Province and therefore unavailable for the meetings. [ 12 ] As a matter of fact, the mother was absent for approximately six weeks and therefore, the adolescent's weekend visits with her did not occur as planned. [ 13 ] Although improvements were noted in the group home, the adolescent continues to manifest behavioural issues in school. She recognizes that her attitude and negative relationships with some of her peers and teachers need improvement.

After a few suspensions, the youth was suspended indefinitely from [School A] and integrated [School B] on May 4 th , 2016. [ 14 ] The father has been involved with the Director since the beginning of 2016. He made himself available to meet with the youth worker and has participated in the Family Ties Program. He has demonstrated that he can provide consistency and structure for his daughter. [ 15 ] Under the circumstances, the Director has established the need for ongoing intervention. The recommendations made meet the needs of the adolescent and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still compromised; 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: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until, at the latest, the last day of school or 23 rd of June, which ever comes first; [ 18 ] TAKES ACT of the reintegration plan described by the worker and takes for granted that if all goes according to the plan, the adolescent will be fully reintegrated to her father's care at the latest by June 13 th . [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS to the mother to receive the services needed regarding her situation; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS to the adolescent to benefit from psychological services if she wishes; [ 21 ] Should the adolescent wish to receive psychological services, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to take steps to provide the adolescent with psychological services for as long as deemed necessary by the professional and wished by the adolescent; [ 22 ] ORDERS the adolescent and both parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the modalities and duration of contacts between the adolescent and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS the minimum frequency at once (1) per week; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her parents for a period of nine (9) months; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] 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 Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the adolescent Me Marc Morin Attorney for the mother Me Maud Jasmin Attorney for the father Date of hearing : February 4 th and May 24 th , 2016