2016 QCCQ 14326, 2016 QCCQ 14326

WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or of his or her parents. Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (Sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A. ). Protection de la jeunesse — 166461 2016 QCCQ 14326 JN 0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-026771-139 DATE: February 17, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A, Director and X (born on [...], 2007), Child and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR REVISION (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court intends, by this judgment, to confirm in writing its reasons for the decision rendered during the hearing held on February 17, 2016. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion for Revision filed by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection A (hereafter, the " Director" ), on January 15, 2016, pursuant to Subsections 95 (1) of the Youth Protection Act , to revise the orders rendered by the undersigned on August 25, 2015. [ 3 ] Since this judgment was rendered, X was integrated on a full time basis in the foster home she had been introduced to in the Spring of 2015. [ 4 ] In mid-November 2015, the foster family travelled to Barbados for a wedding and they brought X with them.

[ 5 ] Incidents of behavioural issues involving X occurred during this trip and continued to escalate upon the foster family’s return. [ 6 ] Despite the involvement of two (2) educators who are providing services to the foster family in order to maintain X in this environment, the child has been regressing and reverting to past behaviours such as throwing objects, hitting the foster mother, waking up during the night, banging her head on the walls and not letting the other people in the foster home sleep. [ 7 ] Despite the foster family receiving some respite, they are overwhelmed with the situation and have requested that X be removed from their home. [ 8 ] On January 18, 2016, the Court orders the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in an institution operating a rehabilitation centre.

The Court also maintains all of the other compatible measures ordered in the judgment of August 25, 2015. [ 9 ] On February 17, 2016, as a principal measure, the Director recommends that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation treatment program for a period of one (1) year. The Director also recommends other measures which are sought to resolve the situation which has put the security and development of the child in danger, as appears from the Court Report filed as Exhibit D-2. [ 10 ] The mother is present at the hearing.

Her attorney proceeds to make a number of admissions and informs the Court that his client consents to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 11 ] As for the father, he his also present at the hearing. Despite being informed by the Court of his right to be assisted by an attorney, he elects to proceed without such assistance.

The father proceeds to make certain admissions and states that he is in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 12 ] Given the age of the child, her attorney does not make any admissions but declares that she agrees with the most of the measures sought by the Director, except for the withdrawal of the father’s exercise of parental authority. [ 13 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 14 ] The social worker reports that out of a well intended desire to overcome X’s past traumas through affection, the foster parents at times disregarded intervention directives from the professionals involved, particularly with respect to X’s attachment issues. [ 15 ] As a result, X was placed in a reception centre, the [Group Home A] .

The goal is to stabilize her situation in a group home context and to establish a new plan for her. [ 16 ] This unfortunate outcome highlights the importance of taking the time required to prepare and implement an eventual integration of X into a new foster home. [ 17 ] It appears that X’s behaviour has stabilized since her group home placement but she needs very much support from the professionals involved in her situation to cope with these recent developments as she wanted to return and continue living with her foster family.

The Court notes that X’s father has been very supportive of her by maintaining regular contact with his daughter. [ 18 ] In addition, individual therapy was quickly organized for X with her former musical therapist and weekly consultations began at the end of January 2016. [ 19 ] X talks about her mother but does not ask for her.

She is torn between feelings of love and fright, sometimes wondering whether her mother will be coming after her. [ 20 ] In any event, the mother is still in the process of organizing her life after her release from custody and must abide by the conditions imposed by the Criminal Division of the Court. [ 21 ] As for the father, he sees X every second Friday for a period of one (1) hour. He is engaged during these visits, as well as being appropriate and affectionate.

He also must deal with his own personal issues. [ 22 ] The Court rules that the Director’s request that it withdraw the exercise of the father’s parental authority relating to authorizations required for X is not warranted given the father’s continued involvement in the situation of his daughter. [ 23 ] After having received the admissions, taken into consideration the position of the parties, the testimonies heard, as well as the Court Report filed in the Court record, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the security and development of the child are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act . [ 24 ] The Court is also of the opinion that most of the measures proposed by the Director are in the interest of the child. [ 25 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision ; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are still in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act ; [ 28 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT: [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to a residential treatment program; [ 30 ] ORDERS that this resource remain confidential to the mother;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] PROHIBITS contacts between the child and her mother, as well as between the child and Mr.

C; [ 33 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her brother Y be maintained; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receive all of the health care and services required by her condition; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all of the service providers working with the family, including Services correctionnels Quebec; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father avail himself of community based services and address his unresolved personal issues; [ 37 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority pertaining to signing consents and authorizations required for X regarding education, therapeutic and medical care and travel, which includes obtaining a passport; [ 38 ] GRANTS the exercise of these attributes to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to X and her family; [ 40 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the social worker assigned to X's situation remain involved in this matter for the duration of this order; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purposes of executing the measures ordered by the Court; [ 42 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgment by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 43 ] ALL OF THESE MEASURES will be in force for a period of 1 year.

Signed and filed on April 11, 2016 _______________________________________ JACQUES A. NADEAU, J.C.Q. Mtre Sym Davis AN4187 Attorney for the Director Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub AA00B3 Attorney for the children Mtre Jean-Hervé Thomas AT8560 Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: February 17, 2016 JAN/mcl