2018 QCCQ 18134, 2018 QCCQ 18134

Protection de la jeunesse — 189094 2018 QCCQ 18134 JG2072 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-008734-172 DATE : November 20 th , 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONOURABLE MARIO GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [Social Woker 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2001 Respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T Section 95(1) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) petitions the Court with an application for revision and extension of a Court Order. [ 2 ] On January 16 th , 2018, the Court declared that the security and the development of the child were in danger for the following reasons: ➢ 38 b) 1° iii) : neglect on educational level; ➢ 38

b) e) : physical abuse; ➢ 38 f) : serious behavioral disturbance; [ 3 ] As key measures, the child was entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center until September 1 st , 2018, with the possibility of a progressive or full reintegration in her family from June 22 nd , 2018.

[ 4 ] On April 23 rd , 2018, following an application from the child, the Court reviewed its judgment for the purpose of specifying the access rights of the parents to their child in the absence of an agreement. [ 5 ] In the present application, the Director alleges mostly: ➢ The familial reintegration of the child within her family remains fragile; ➢ The social follow-up of the Director is hitting a wall since the family is not opened to its guidance and advice. [ 6 ] The Director recommends to end his intervention and refer the family members to the CLSC to obtain the social services they need.

Position of the parties [ 7 ] The parents and the child are in agreement with the application and wish the end of the Director’s intervention. Situation and Analysis [ 8 ] The child evolved inconsistently in reception center.

She went through periods of progress and setbacks. [ 9 ] More worryingly, in May 2018, the child sold medication (Xanax) to a peer in the reception center that resulted to her hospitalization. [ 10 ] Although progressive familial reintegration was planned to proceed during the summer 2018, it had to be delayed for the following reasons: ➢ The child’s behavior being too disturbed; ➢ Parents showing little or no collaboration with the Director in order to improve their parental skills. [ 11 ] On August 30 th , 2018, the Court rendered a provisional order entrusting the child to her parents with numerous conditions, including the support of a family educator. [ 12 ] Since that date, the child’s behavior, altogether, is acceptable.

The child is showing more maturity. There has been no family crisis. [ 13 ] The child attends school regularly without difficulty. She will graduate from High School in 2009. [ 14 ] The child hasn’t attended a sole meeting with the family educator, disregarding the Court order. [ 15 ] As for meetings of the Director with the parents, they are unproductive. The parents are not opened to the Director’s intervention.

Bottom line, the familial climate is resting on the child’s shoulders. [ 16 ] On a positive note, the situation of physical abuse retained by the Court following a violent incident on July 7 th 2017 involving the father is no more a source of concern. Since then, the father as never resorted to inappropriate educational methods. [ 17 ] The Court agrees with the Director that her intervention is hitting a wall and that another approach must be put forward to effectively support the family.

Referring family members to the CLSC seems, at this point, the best solution. [ 18 ] That being said, the Court is not ready to close the file immediately. In the weeks to come, the Court wants the Director to support the parents and the child in their steps to make sure that the CLSC will take over. [ 19 ] For all of these reasons, the application of the Director is dismissed and the Court order will remain in force until January 16 th , 2019. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 20 ] DISMISSES the application. Mario Gervais, J.C.Q.

M e Caterine Caron Attorney for DYP M e Annabelle Faubert Attorney for the child Signature date: December 6, 2018