2017 QCCQ 17320, 2017 QCCQ 17320

Protection de la jeunesse — 177721 2017 QCCQ 17320 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000758-177 DATE: October 13, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising hre profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, domiciled and residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Adolescent -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at [...] in City C, district B, J0W 2C0 Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 38 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection filed an application to have the security and development of the adolescent declared in danger. Originally, the motion supported three motives in which the adolescent was in danger in regards to paragraph (b) , (

d) and (

f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (neglect, sexual abuse and serious behavioral disturbance). On the second day of the hearing, the Director decided to proceed only under

section 38 (f) , alleging that she was in need of protection because of her serious behavioral disturbance. [ 2 ] The adolescent and her mother were both present in July and in September for the hearing. The father was absent on both days but represented by a lawyer. [ 3 ] On July 11, 2017, the first day of the hearing, the adolescent and her mother admitted the serious behavioural disturbance. They agreed that X smoked marijuana on a daily basis and had used cocaine, methamphetamines and speed in the past. She did not respect curfew, and often left home to spend time smoking marijuana with friends and relatives.

She had a difficult time in school and was often late or absent without reason. [ 4 ] In September and October 2016, X was hospitalized following suicidal attempts and hallucinatory experiences related to anxiety. She sometimes self-mutilated by cutting her wrists and forearms. [ 5 ] The evidence is preponderant that X displays serious behavioral problems, which prompts the need for protection and the presence of the Director of Youth Protection in her life. [ 6 ] The mother is X’s main caregiver. The parents separated when she was a toddler.

The mother’s ex-spouse, C is a father figure for X even if the couple is now separated. [ 7 ] The adolescent visited her paternal environment on a regular basis. Since 2014, she feels significant unease with her father and would prefer to be in the presence of her paternal grandmother. This reluctance towards her father originates from sexual abuse allegations that were not explored during this hearing. The adolescent did not agree to talk about those allegations.

[ 8 ] On July 11, 2017, on the basis of evidence provided that day, X’s security and development were declared in danger because of her serious behavioural disturbance. [ 9 ] At the time, the mother was overwhelmed by X’s behavior and she could not provide the supervision and the specific support needed by her daughter. [ 10 ] X had been entrusted to a rehabilitation center since May 10, 2017, under a provisional agreement.

She was respectful at the center and showed that she could follow rules and respect instructions, but she still needed to be in that secure environment to work on maintaining her sobriety and consolidate the improvements that were noted (impulsivity, control of her emotions, anger). So on July 11, 2017, she was entrusted to a rehabilitation center until the next Court date of September 27, 2017, with a progressive reintegration with her mother. [ 11 ] Considering the statement of the Director that he would not provide evidence under paragraphs (

b) and (

d) of

section 38 Y.P.A., the September 27 hearing's sole purpose was determining the appropriate measures to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the adolescent are in danger. [ 12 ] The evidence shows that the reintegration of X with her mother was successful. The situation is very positive and X is doing well. Since August 3, 2017, she is living with her mother full time. [ 13 ] X is now receiving medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that was diagnosed last January, which seems to be helping her a lot.

She mentions that her mind is clearer. [ 14 ] X attends school regularly. A special teacher assessed her needs for the year to come. [ 15 ] She is also seeing a psychologist since July. X opened herself to her. Addressing her issues and talking about the challenges that she had to overcome can only be very beneficial to the adolescent. She needs to work on all the problems that brought her anxiety and suicidal ideation. [ 16 ] She did not have suicidal thoughts and did not show any self-harm behaviour in the last weeks.

She seems to be in a better place. [ 17 ] The Court considers that X can remain with her mother. She will need to continue her follow-up with the psychologist, and participate to maintain her sobriety by following an addiction counselling program. [ 18 ] Considering X’s sexual abuse allegations and her uneasiness, at least for now, in her father’s presence, the Director will have to supervise their contacts. This issue will be addressed with the worker and the psychologist to help X understand her feelings towards her father and work on any issue that might exist between them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with her mother; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the youth and her parents participate actively to the implementation of the measures; [ 22 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother receive follow-up services to support her in her parental role; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and her family for a period of 12 months; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the youth receive the health care her personal situation requires, notably to continue the psychological follow-up and participate in an addiction counselling program and with any other relevant professional; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a regular basis or another place of learning or participates in a program geared to develop skills and autonomy; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and her father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection regarding their modalities, degree of supervision, and frequency, in the best interest of the youth; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother inform the Director of Youth Protection of any relocation at least 72 hours in advance; [ 28 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the youth and her parents authorize the exchange of information between the professionals involved; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents and the youth report regularly to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that any police officer collaborate in the execution of the present order if required;

[ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection of the CISSAT who shall see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. M e Pierre Grygiel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the adolescent M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Daoust Parayre avocats inc. Lawyer for the mother M e Jean-François Lacasse Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: July 11, 2017 and September 27, 2017