2015 QCCQ 10149, 2015 QCCQ 10149

Protection de la jeunesse — 151484 2015 QCCQ 10149 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029077-146 Date: February 5, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 1998 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 5, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a sixteen year-old adolescent, based on her serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated October 28, 2014 are as follows: 3.1. in 2010, the adolescent was adopted by the parents, after numerous previous placements in different foster families; 3.2. the adolescent had difficulty adjusting to living the parents, and had been diagnosed with Opposition Defiant Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; 3.3. several therapeutic interventions had been attempted but had not been successful in resolving the adjustment difficulties; 3.4. in February 2012, the family moved from Town A to Town B; 3.5. the father maintained his employment in Town A but returned to Town B each weekend; 3 .6. in November 2012, the adolescent’s situation became known to the Director of Youth Protection; 3.7. the adolescent’s behaviours were increasingly difficult, and she was increasingly physically and verbally aggressive towards the parents, especially the mother; 3.8. the parents had difficulty adapting to the adolescent’s behaviour, and the family relationships significantly deteriorated, leading to physical altercations between the parents and the adolescent; 3.9. following a period of voluntary provisional placement from November to December 2012, the adolescent and parents agreed that they needed support services to address their family difficulties; 3.10. on December 19, 2012, an Agreement on Voluntary Measures was concluded, with a goal of reintegrating the adolescent to the

parents within the following six (6) months; 3.11. in January 2013, the adolescent was entrusted to de "A" Group Home; 3.12. soon after, the father moved to Town B on a full time basis; 3.13. the parents did not follow through on accessing the recommended therapeutic services for the family; 3.14. in April 2013, the adolescent’s sibling was born to the mother; 3.15. educator services were provided and the adolescent maintained regular weekend visitation home, but the situation did not yet allow for her reintegration within the six-month period; 3.16. on June 17, 2013, a second Agreement on Voluntary Measures was concluded extending the period of reintegration home for an additional three (3) months; 3.17. initially, the adolescent made positive gains, but subsequently, during a family vacation to Germany in August 2013, her behaviour significantly deteriorated; 3.18. following the vacation, despite ongoing support and intervention, the adolescent’s behaviour continued to escalate, so much so that reintegration could not occur as planned; 3.19. the adolescent did not take responsibility for her behaviour, did not appreciate the impact of her behaviour on her parents, and did not fully participate in steps to improve the situation; 3.20. the parents blamed the situation entirely on the adolescent’s behaviour, and maintained their refusal to participate in the recommended therapeutic services; 3.21. on December 18, 2013, a third Agreement on Voluntary Measures was concluded, maintaining the adolescent in rehabilitation centre placement for an additional year; 3.22. since that time, the adolescent continues to demonstrate certain challenging and oppositional behaviour, testing the rules and boundaries at the group home; 3.23. nonetheless, the adolescent has continued to make significant positive gains, more particularly at school and as a counsellor at summer camp, as well as at de "A" Group Home, where she has remained; 3.24. in March 2014, the adolescent began participating in individual psychological counselling; 3.25. in the summer of 2012, the parents separated, although they remained living on different floors of the same duplex; 3.26. up to July 2014, the adolescent had positive visits home on a regular basis; 3.27. however, following an incident between the adolescent and the mother in late July 2014, the adolescent stated that she is not happy at home; 3.28. the adolescent further stated that she no longer wishes to be reintegrated home to either of her parents, and the parents agree for her orientation towards independent living; 3.29. ongoing rehabilitation centre placement is required to control her behaviour and to prepare her for independent living; 3.30. ongoing intervention is required to maintain a positive relationship between the adolescent and the parents (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until she reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2016. [ 5 ] The parents, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and expressed their consent to all the proposed measures.

However, they explained that despite their efforts, they were unable to access appropriate services for their family whose situation was allegedly deemed “too complex”. They hope to continue to see their daughter as much as possible. [ 6 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Saad, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and also consented to the proposed measures.

However, the adolescent denies any involvement in the selling of drugs and is seeing a counsellor for substance abuse. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-4 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, written by [Social worker 1], dated October 15, 2014; D-2: Agreement on Voluntary Measures from December 2012, June 2013 and December 2013; D-3: Addendum to Court Report, written by [Social worker 1], dated January 26, 2015; D-4: Adolescent’s birth certificate.

[ 8 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion and the need for the adolescent’s continued placement. [ 9 ] As described in the latest Court report : X is currently in a group home setting, at De "A" group Home. Most of the risk behaviors that were present at the start of DYP intervention are no longer existent. X was a staff at a summer camp for the last two summers and was successful at that. X has identified long-term goals involving working with children. In addition, X has been attending her weekly therapeutic sessions with [Social worker 2] from [ ]’s Psychological Services.

Since the beginning of DYP involvement the plan has been for X to return home. As of August 2014, X decided that she no longer wishes to return home. X recognizes that the issues that prevail at home will always exist, but she still wishes to maintain a relationship with both her parents and her brother Y. It is evident that X and her family continue to require the additional therapeutic and clinical support provided by [Youth and Family Centres A] to support and maintain her relationship with her parents.

In addition, DYP involvement is necessary to establish and maintain a long-term plan in which supports and encourages X’s wishes and goals to reside independently upon turning 18 [2] (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 10 ] Given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the adolescent's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent, X , are compromised under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 13 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 15 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that such contacts will be encouraged and will occur as frequently as possible; [ 16 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that such contacts currently occur twice a week and that the parents would like contacts to be increased, as the situation allows and, consequently, RECOMMENDS that contacts be encouraged, as much as possible; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care services she requires, more particularly psychological counselling for as long as necessary; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Youth and Family Centres A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 21 ] THE WHOLE until she reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2016.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Heidi Lechter Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the adolescent

TD/vl