2016 QCCQ 17205, 2016 QCCQ 17205

Protection de la jeunesse — 168287 2016 QCCQ 17205 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 640-41-002049-168 DATE: December 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1999 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, District A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38, 75 and 91 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 of the A C.Y.P.C. asks the Court to declare the security and development of X, 17 years old, in danger because her mother is failing to provide the youth with the appropriate supervision and to take the necessary steps to provide the youth with schooling, because the youth is subjected to gestures of sexual nature by another person and the mother fails to take steps to put an end to the situation and because of her serious behavioural problems (section 38 (b) (1) iii., (d) (1) and (

f) YP.A.). [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the youth are present, assisted by Me Angèle Tommasel and Me Joannie Jacob. Me Aubrée Coutanson represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The youth acknowledges many allegations and admits that her security and development are in danger. She disagrees with the recommendations and wants to remain with her mother. [ 4 ] The mother admits few allegations and wants that her daughter remain with her. [ 5 ] The evidence is completed with the testimony of the social worker and the social study filed.

No defense is tendered. [ 6 ] It is proved beyond the balance of probabilities that on September 8, 2015, the youth and her mother signed voluntary measures for 12 months because of the serious behavioural disturbances of the youth and the mother’s difficulties to control and to put structures to her. [ 7 ] On January 7, 2012, the Court maintained that the security and development of X were still in danger because of the parents’ neglect.

The previous judgment for the same motives had been rendered in 2010. [ 8 ] Following the signature of the voluntary measures, the mother and the youth did not collaborate. [ 9 ] On September 3, 2016, the social worker intervened two nights in a row because the youth was heavily intoxicated.

Also, she was victim of sexual abuse while intoxicated and did not want to file a complaint because she was scared of the abuser. [ 10 ] On September 8, 2016, the youth ran away and the police was asked to look for her. [ 11 ] Adding to the facts that the youth consume alcohol regularly and run away, she displays suicidal ideations, does self-mutilation, does not attend school since February 2016 and has relationships with people well known by the police. [ 12 ] The mother does not provide supervision to her daughter.

She is often at her boyfriend’s house and leaves the youth alone. [ 13 ] As the Youth Protection is involved regularly in this family, we must conclude that the mother is unable to change her way of life. The unstable lifestyle, the lack of structures, the abuses of consumption and the violence she was victim by her boyfriend are the models she offered her daughter who tends to copy exactly such models.

[ 14 ] It is consequently urgent that re-education services be offered intensively to the youth. She has to develop her maturity and be in a position to protect herself. [ 15 ] Consequently, the Court believes that it is only in a structured setting with professional services that such goals might be reached in a delay of six months. The Director of Youth Protection must take all the measures to ensure that the youth will remain at the reception centre during such placement and provide her all the re-education services she needs. Following the placement, services of an educator will guide her until her majority.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of six months; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the services of an external educator to the youth after the placement, until her majority; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide medical health care including psychiatric services she might need after evaluation; [ 20 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the contacts and visits of the youth with her mother; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and her mother until August 24, 2017; [ 22 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the present enactment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Me Joannie Jacob Attorney for the youth Date of hearing: November 10, 2016