2013 QCCQ 14508, 2013 QCCQ 14508

Protection de la jeunesse — 135131 2013 QCCQ 14508 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004051-119 DATE: June 7, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...] , 1997 Adolescent THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE DE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a court decision rendered on September 5, 2012 concerning the adolescent X , born on [...] , 1997 . [ 2 ] The previous order declares that the security and the development of the adolescent remain in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbances, and stipulates the application of measures for six months, including her placement in a rehabilitation center. [ 3 ] The Court dispenses service of the proceedings to the father, who is of unknown address and absent from his daughter's life.

The mother, having received service of the proceedings, is absent. The Petitioner testifies that she is aware and in agreement with the recommendations. The adolescent consigns her admissions in the Court record and agrees to the measures.

[ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] At the pronouncement of the previous judgment, the adolescent is pursuing a substance abuse rehabilitation program with center A . She completes the six-step in-patient program and subsequently returns to the care of her mother on January 17, 2013. [ 6 ] Rapidly, the situation degenerates. The adolescent fails to participate in her after-care program. She relapses into drug use and the accompanying turmoil resurfaces. She is defiant and oppositional.

The relationship with her mother and her stepfather, already tense, becomes increasingly conflictual. [ 7 ] On April 17 th , the adolescent commences a follow up with a psychologist. A few days later, she leaves home and is found by the A at a friend's house. [ 8 ] The mother refuses to take her daughter home and the parties proceed to her provisional placement in a group home. In this milieu, her evolution fluctuates. She disobeys the rules and the staff determines to put her on constant sight supervision.

She admits to consuming marijuana. [ 9 ] In May, X reinitiates her file at center A and makes a request for counselor services from Pavillon B , in regard to her drug addiction. After reflection, she decides to reintegrate the in-patient program with center A and returns on June 4 th . The duration of the complimentary program is 2 to 3 months. [ 10 ] The evidence demonstrates that the adolescent struggles with a myriad of issues, of which her drug dependency constitutes but a portion.

Although the family receives support since 2011, there is little effective resolution of the core problems affecting the adolescent's security and development. [ 11 ] Her history shows that she fails to integrate the tools put at her disposal to address her addiction and adopt socially acceptable behaviours, bringing the Court to question the authenticity of her efforts and convictions, to date. [ 12 ] The persistence of the adolescent's behavioural difficulties hobbles the family environment.

The mother suffers from extreme stress and a clinical depression, with her daughter's difficulties constituting contributing factor. The Court considers that the home environment is unable to actually respond to the adolescent's complex needs. [ 13 ] The adolescent needs to definitely address her addiction issues, at which time, there will be question of the rehabilitation of her other behavioural problems.

The Court considers that a structured environment is necessary to provide the supervision necessary to shield the adolescent from her destructive behaviours and provide rehabilitation. [ 14 ] It is essential that any future return home be the fruit of a time-proven progression, in order to preserve the adolescent and the relationships with her family, which can little suffer further failures. [ 15 ] For these reasons, the Court declares the necessary to prolong the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection, in order to ensure the continuation of services and address the ongoing issues, which still affect the security and the development of the adolescent. [ 16 ] As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights and the best interests, of the adolescent. [ 17 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 20 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on September 5, 2012; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a reception center until December 15, 2013; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family until December 15, 2013; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive the health care and service required, namely a follow-up for drug use; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant

Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: June 7, 2013