2011 QCCQ 17292, 2011 QCCQ 17292

Protection de la jeunesse — 116688 2011 QCCQ 17292 JD 1705 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 450-41-001106-005 DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: HONOURABLE JUSTICE MICHEL DUBOIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF YOUTH : X Date of birth: […] , 1994 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, working at […] , town A, district A, Petitioner And A , […] , town A (Quebec) […] , And B , […] , town A, (Quebec) […] Parents of the child and LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE , […], town B, district A. ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In his motion of October 18, 2011 , the Director of Youth Protection asked the Court to undertake a new review of the situation of the youth X, who is seventeen years. [ 2 ] More specifically, the Court was asked to review the judgment of May 17, 2011 concerning her, taking into account all of the

judgments rendered by the undersigned judge in her life, over the last twelve years. [ 3 ] The Court recalled the importance of taking careful knowledge of the May 17, 2011 judgment and especially the following extracts: It should be recalled, nonetheless, that the youth has been living in the same foster family since 2005. In psychological and affective terms, she considers these foster parents to be her parents.

When the youth was obliged to live for approximately two years in a readaptation centre, she maintained a meaningful relationship with her foster family and made efforts to return to live with the people she considered to be her family. It is clear that this youth greatly wishes to live with "her family". It is equally clear that the foster family also wishes to have this adolescent be part of the family. However, it is important to gauge the difference between the will or desire and the reality and the capacity to live a pleasant family life under the same roof.

The Court finds itself here in a situation of a repeating pattern. The youth and " her family " go through a short honeymoon period together and then the youth, who has an attachment disorder, defies the rules, provokes confrontations and manifests opposition, not because she is a bad youth, but simply because she does not believe she is worthy and capable of being loved.

Even though the foster parents understand this way of functioning, the situation sometimes becomes unmanageable and unlivable for everyone. (Para. 4 to 11) Professional opinions are divided, but incline toward the view that the adolescent should be allowed to see her experience in this foster family through, even if everything suggests that she will suffer another failure. (para. 19) The same pattern is repeating itself.

The Director of Youth Protection recommends keeping the youth in her foster family, which she considers to be her family, while stipulating that in case of failure, the plan will be to focus instead on developing the adolescent's autonomy from a more neutral environment (readaptation centre). (para. 20) These are the reasons allowing the Court to state that the pattern is repeating itself and will in all probability repeat itself again ... in the youth's interest, it would seem! (para. 22) [ 4 ] Since the May 17, 2011 judgment , the Director of Youth Protection alleges that the following facts occurred:

a) X continues to live in her foster home where her functioning is variable. Her oppositional behaviour remains although considerably less frequent and intense;

b) X still has trouble accepting responsibility for her actions and tends to blame others namely her foster parents for being too strict. After a while, she is however able to admit that she was wrong;

c) X has received the services of an educator on a weekly basis since April in order to help her control her anger and develop ways to interact adequately with the other members of the foster family;

d) X has participated well in the educative services. She has been present at the meetings and open and honest with the educator. However, she has yet to stabilize her behaviour for extended periods of time and to be assiduous in her efforts to find a job and develop her autonomy;

e) X has had three jobs so far but quit each one after a few hours for various reasons;

f) X will begin anger management classes this fall and, at her request, is on a waiting list for a psychological follow-up;

g) X has clearly bonded with her foster family and wishes to remain living there for years to come. Presently, she is not interested in going out on her own in an apartment. She does not feel ready for this;

h) because of her attachment disorder, X's oppositional behaviour and her tendency to lash out at those she loves is part of her profile and is not likely to change in the short term whether she remains in her foster home or not;

i) X acknowledge that there is much room for improvement in her behaviour and unequivocally states that she is willing to work to improve herself;

j) the foster parents are committed to X and accept her for who she is. They consider her like a daughter and are willing to keep her at home as long as she needs them;

k) since the last Court order, the parents have not contacted the social worker for news of their daughter;

l) in July, the parents contacted X through Facebook and offered that she come live with them when she turns eighteen (18). A few exchanges between them occurred and ended on a negative note. X does not wish to have any further contact with them. [ 5 ] During the hearing, the adolescent and her parents were absent for various reasons. [ 6 ] The young lady told her counsel that she did not want to take the risk of meeting her parents in court.

[ 7 ] What she wants is very clear, to no longer see them and to continue to make an effort to live in the family that she considers being her family.

She is proud to mention that difficult times are less frequent and less intense in her living environment. [ 8 ] For their part, the parents are absent because they chose to be absent and to protest in their own way against the youth protection system. [ 9 ] The parents told the Director of youth protection’s delegate the week before the hearing that their children were unjustly taken from them more than ten years ago and that they are victims of a conspiracy. [ 10 ] The parents admit having had contacts with their daughter on Facebook on three occasions.

Personally, the parents were informed that there was a contact prohibition order between them and their daughter . [ 11 ] The parents consider that because they are the parents of the young woman, they have the right to attempt to communicate with her and to not follow the contact prohibition order with their daughter. [ 12 ] Counsel for the Director of youth protection, informed of the contacts on Facebook, has sent a letter to the parents (exhibit D- 4) to remind them of the importance of complying with the court order and the foreseeable consequences of default. [ 13 ] The parents had already told the delegate that they had no intention to attend court in this context. [ 14 ] In a recent report of October 20, 2011 , [social worker 2], spokesperson of the team providing coaching and support to the teenager in recent years wrote : We find it important to remember that, as a child, X has lacked proper parental care and actually suffered from her parents, enough to developed Reactive Attachment Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

These are perceived to be life-long troubles, the manifestations (and suffering) of which we can normally only hope to ease up to a certain point. X has been lucky in that sense, and despite the heavy ordeal she has had to experience early in life, she has had the chance of encountering people, her foster parents, who would become her true parental figures over the years. With them, she has been able to develop, as much as she could, a sense of belonging. They have remained there for her through the difficulties and even through the abusive behaviour and attitude she has had at times.

As both them and X herself express, this has become her come. We may fail to realize how very positive an outcome that X should have developed such a significant relationship, which will support her on the long run. We find it is essential that, any direction her situation takes, precedence be given to protecting this achievement. […] At the last court hearing, the over-all perception was still doubtful, the Court granting for the adolescent to remain in her living setting but voicing little confidence in her capacity to change, and thus ordering a term of 6 months.

It was a right assessment in the sense that there are, and will always remain, the same limits to how much real change can occur. X is basically the same. Her foster parents know that and accept it as long as they get the support that has enabled them to cope with it. X knows it too, and claims the right to be that way, which is training enough as it is.

What has changed is the adolescent's level of maturity; what has progressed is her capacity, when she is not overwhelmed with emotions, to share and contribute to the efforts that are consented around her; what is being achieved, again when the situation is not at one of its peak that has everybody focused on the here-and-now, is that X is engaging in counselling so to gradually re-appropriate her own history, learn more about who she is so to be able to sort out emotions, practice with making decisions accordingly and thus own a certain power over the course of her life.

X is likely to continue being overwhelmed at times; these should therefore continue to be met with the means that have timely applied and which did suffice to diffuse the situation. We no longer are unable to provide proper response in her present setting. We can actually give her the message (already given by foster mother) that things are fine, we can manage her the way she is, we know that certain aspects of her personality the cannot change and will still accompany her, namely by setting limits as need be; there is no need for her to challenge and provoke the rejection that she fears because it will not come.

We find it extremely important that X be relieved from the pressure of feeling always inappropriate, unworthy and bad. She is clearly told that it is the behaviour that is unacceptable at times not her person, but, true to her profile, she cannot easily trust our saving and will need for us to remain consistent in our commitment towards her so to modify her perception. At his point in X's development and considering how the situation has evolved, we clearly believe that she should remain in her current, very supportive setting as is her wish as well as that of her foster parents.

Our support and intervention would continue in the same direction as stated in the intervention plan presented above. (Exhibit D-3, p. 9 et 10) [ 15 ] The Court endorses this nuanced and clear professional analysis. [ 16 ] There is nothing more to be added except to wish the adolescent and her foster family the strength and courage to continue to do what is necessary to live together until the adolescent reaches the age of majority. [ 17 ] This judgment confirms and completes the reasoned decision made from the bench. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: GRANTS the present motion.

DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X are still in danger. REVISES the Court order rendered on May 17, 2011 in the present file; ORDERS that the youth X be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for her foster family placement until the age of her majority August 3 rd 2012 ;

NOTES that the young woman will continue to live with her emotionally affiliated foster family where she currently lives; ORDERS that the youth participate in the measures aimed at correcting the situation namely that she actively and assiduously seek employment and make every effort to keep her job when she finds one; MAINTAINS all other measures ordered on May 17 th 2011 until the age of her majority, August 3 rd , 2012, more specifically the contact prohibition order between the adolescent and her parents; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Michel DuBois, J.C.Q.

M e Monique Lavallée For the D.Y.P. M e Geneviève Lafontaine For the youth Date of hearing: November 7, 2011