2012 QCCQ 17513, 2012 QCCQ 17513

Protection de la jeunesse — 126918 2012 QCCQ 17513 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division N o : 640-41-001495-123 DATE: November 26, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on […], 2000 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services of City A, district A Petitioner and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in Town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91 Y.P.A. , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mrs [social Worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of the ABoard of Health and Social Services of City A, asks the Court to declare the security and development of X, 11 years old, in danger with regard to

section 38 (b) , (

c) and (

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present, assisted by Me Claude Beaudet. Me Yan Massé represents the youth and Me Gabriel Gaudreault the petitioner. [ 3 ] The youth and the parents admit all the allegations, acknowledge the compromission and agree with the recommendations including a six-month placement in a foster family. [ 4 ] The evidence is completed with the testimonies of the social worker and the supervisor. A social study is filed. [ 5 ] It is proved that the Youth Protection is involved in this family's life since many years.

The parents display alcohol consumption problems, are homeless and are unable to provide the child's needs. Their lifestyle is unstable and inappropriate for the child. [ 6 ] In such environment, the youth X developed behavioural problems. She does not attend school and does not respect authority nor curfews. She is aggressive and impulsive. She has been placed in numerous foster homes in the past. Her brothers are placed since many years in the same foster family. X's behaviour overwhelmed many foster parents. [ 7 ] At least four voluntary measures were signed in X's situation.

Re-education services are urgently needed for the child, but the Director of Youth Protection never offered them. The social worker is unsure of her recommendations. She changes them during the hearing, asking now for a reception centre. Her supervisor has to testify to support the last recommendation. [ 8 ] Even if X is only 11 years old, with such behaviour, her placement in a new foster home, even if they resided in another community, will not succeed. They tried it already and it did not work. [ 9 ] She needs specialised services in a structured setting.

The parents do not have any authority on her and might have negative influence. They have their own problems and do not seek for any help. They do not collaborate with the social services. [ 10 ] Considering the aggressive behaviour of the child, the Court recommends a psychological evaluation in a short delay. [ 11 ] For the duration of the placement, the Court, considering the whole evidence, orders it until the end of school, in June 2013.

[ 12 ] The Court also recommends the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to evaluate the interventions made by the Director of Youth Protection in the past until this procedure and the services provided. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence and the youth's interest, [ 14 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of X at the reception centre until the end of the school year in June 2013; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS a psychological evaluation of the youth in a short delay; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her parents for a period of 18 months; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise all the contacts and visits of the youth with her parents (frequency, duration and third person if needed); [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to evaluate the services provided by the Director of Youth Protection up to now; [ 21 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the petitioner Me Claude Beaudet, attorney for the parents Me Yan Massé, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: October 16, 2012