2012 QCCQ 13958, 2012 QCCQ 13958

Protection de la jeunesse — 125677 2012 QCCQ 13958 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-021720-081 DATE: October 22, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1996 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 22, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered November 17, 2010, ordering that the adolescent be entrusted to foster care until his age of majority and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent remained in foster family placement as per the Court order; • Up until July 9, 2012, the adolescent was functioning with minor difficulties in the foster family; • The mother has been uninvolved and uncollaborative with the youth protection worker; • The mother reportedly moved to city A, returning to city B sometime in June 2012; • Around the same period, the adolescent’s behaviour in foster family began to decline; • At times, the youth was verbally abusive and not respectful of the foster parents’ authority; • The youth began staying out late past his curfew and was unaccountable; • More recently, the youth acknowledged that he has been spending time with his mother unauthorized; • The mother’s current situation remains unclear to the Director of Youth Protection given her lack of collaboration; • The youth has a history of tumultuous foster family placements given his attachment issues and loyalty towards his mother; • The youth attended camp from July 9 to August 17, 2012;

• Currently, the foster family expresses that they can no longer care for the adolescent; • On August 17, 2012, immediate protective measures were invoked and the youth was placed in a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year with reintegration to his mother’s care if the situation allows. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of 18 months. [ 5 ] The parents were not present at the hearing although a notice of hearing was sent to them by the clerk’s office.

The mother does not participate in the social follow-up and the father’s collaboration with the youth worker is minimal. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the parents. [ 6 ] The adolescent admits the facts alleged in the motion. He agrees to remain at the A Group Home until his age of majority. His lawyer informs the Court that he does not wish to reintegrate his mother’s home.

He would eventually like to reintegrate his previous foster home. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. [social worker 1], youth protection delegate, and read the report that the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that the adolescent’s return to either of his parents in the near future is unlikely. Therefore, due to the adolescent’s attachment issues, he benefits from a neutral environment such as the A Group Home. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until his age of majority.

At this point, the parents are not in a position to have the adolescent back in their care.

However, if the integration of the adolescent in a foster family is contemplated, the parties can petition the Court. [ 9 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the adolescent, X; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until his age of majority, […], 2013; [ 14 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent actively participate in A programs and services; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into account the wishes of the adolescent; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts between the adolescent and his brother, Y, be encouraged; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain information from the school authorities concerning the progress and difficulties of the adolescent and that a tutor be found for the adolescent; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the youth delegate, Ms. [social worker 1], remain in the file for the duration of the present order; [ 19 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family until his age of majority; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 21 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 23, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marc Morin

Counsel for the adolescent Date of hearing: October 22, 2012