2015 QCCQ 19497, 2015 QCCQ 19497

Protection de la jeunesse — 157024 2015 QCCQ 19497 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029328-150 DATE : September 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 September 9 th , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision and extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on February 16 th , 2015. The Director is asking that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre until June 30 th , 2016 with possible integration to her mother's care commencing after a period of six months.

The Director is also asking that aid, counsel and assistance be provided until September 30 th , 2016. [ 3 ] The mother admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion. She, as her daughter, agrees with the placement of the adolescent in a rehabilitation centre but only for a period of six months. She hopes that the reintegration will be allowed after a period of four months of placement. [ 4 ] The father admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion and agrees, as he said, "100 %" with the mother.

He wishes for his daughter to attend regular community school as of January and therefore, he is in support of the reintegration of the adolescent into her mother's care sooner than later. [ 5 ] The adolescent also admits all the facts alleged by the Director. She accepts to be fostered in a rehabilitation centre but is opposed to

the duration of placement requested by the Director. She wishes to be reintegrated home in four months within a six months court order of placement in a rehabilitation centre. CONTEXT [ 6 ] Despite the allowed reintegration after two months following the decision rendered on February 16 th , 2015, it has been impossible to plan reintegration with the adolescent, not only when it was exceptionally allowed to do so but throughout the intervention of the Director. [ 7 ] During her stay in the rehabilitation centre, the adolescent was allowed to visit each of her parents during weekends.

At times, she failed to respect the rules and authority of her parents. [ 8 ] In April 2015, the Family Preservation Program was started. Unfortunately, due to the adolescent running away from home on three occasions during visits at her parents, the Family Preservation Program was discontinued. [ 9 ] The youth continued to exhibit oppositional behaviour to authority figures, disrespect her parents' authority and associate with negative peers, placing herself at risk when in the community. [ 10 ] It is only during the summer months that the adolescent has started to open-up and address the real issues.

She states now to be open to receive individual counselling. [ 11 ] The parents have continued to demonstrate their ability to work with the Director and with one another to co-parent their daughter in an effective manner.

They hope that their daughter will pursue her efforts and work on her issues in order to be reintegrated into the mother's care as quickly as possible. [ 12 ] It is the opinion of the youth protection worker that the short period of placement suggested by the adolescent would not allow enough time to address appropriately her situation. [ 13 ] The Director has established the need for continued intervention. Except for the suggested extended period of time during which the Director could integrate the adolescent home, the recommendations of the Director meet the needs of the adolescent.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] 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: [ 15 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of eight (8) months; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS to the adolescent to undergo individual counselling; [ 17 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to take steps to ensure that individual counselling be made available to the adolescent should she wish to receive the services; [ 18 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family until September 30 th , 2016; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 20 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me François Ste-Marie Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Younes Ameur Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing : September 9 th , 2015