2012 QCCQ 19309, 2012 QCCQ 19309

Protection de la jeunesse — 128444 2012 QCCQ 19309 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004143-122 760-41-004142-124 DATE: October 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born […], 1998 Y , born […], 1998 Adolescents THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions for revision of a Court order rendered on May 9 th 2012, concerning the siblings Y and X, both born […] 1998.

[ 2 ] This order entrusts the adolescents to their mother, with various other measures designed to aid and support the family, as well as structure the rules of behaviour in the home environment, the whole for 9 months. [ 3 ] The motion alleges a degeneration of the adolescent's behaviours and their mother's inability to curb such, justify a revision of the previous order and their entrustment in a rehabilitation center for a period of 6 months. [ 4 ] The Petitioner produces the reports on the analysis of the adolescents social situations as evidence in lieu of testimony and this, by consent. [ 5 ] Although the father refuses to furnish his address, the evidence establishes that he is aware of the proceedings.

The Court dispenses service of the motion and proceeds in his absence. [ 6 ] The parties note their admissions in the Court record and affirm their assent to the measures proposed by the Director. X requests to be entrusted to the same resource as her sister. [ 7 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 8 ] The Court estimates necessary to offer a succinct review of the interventions previous to the last order. [ 9 ] Since February 2012, judicial measures are put in place in view of both adolescent's serious behavioural difficulties. At that time, the adolescents live with their mother and the family is in crisis.

The adolescents are suffering from a chronic lack of structure and rules, resulting in their expressing increasingly significant oppositional and aggressive behaviours at home and at school. [ 10 ] The parties agree to entrust Y to her father, expecting that the separation of the siblings is sufficient to appease the situation. Significant rules are put in place to structure each adolescent's situation. X's functioning improves in the absence of her sister's influence.

As for Y, her behaviours and school absenteeism continue in her new environment, requiring her placement in a rehabilitation center, one month later. [ 11 ] Y responds well to the structure of the rehabilitation center. She participates in an anger management program, learns her triggers and how to avoid them. The visits home are generally calm and satisfying. [ 12 ] The improvements are such that in May 2012, the Court concludes that it is appropriate that the final measures maintain the adolescents in their maternal environment.

The judgment reflects the fragility of the situation, as a myriad of measures is put in place to ensure continued progress. [ 13 ] The reintegration of the family unit ignites the cycle resulting of inadequate application of structure, oppositional behaviours and sibling relationship issues. The mother excuses her daughters lack of commitment and disrespect, thereby diminishing her parental authority.

By not exercising her authority in a comprehensive and coherent manner, the siblings are empowered to return to their past behaviours. [ 14 ] The measures are not respected: • Communicate directly with the social worker at least once every two weeks : in the period from May to September, the adolescents each only report once to their worker; • Participate actively in the measures : both the mother and the adolescents fail to participate fully in the measure, failing to be present at the meetings, or integrating the importance of a follow-up.

The adolescents disregard the intervention, while the mother fails in her commitment. • Anger management therapy through the services of an educator : Y refuses to undergo anger management. X completes her sessions with the educator. • Frequent school assiduously: Y cites anxiety, which keeps her from taking the bus, and results in cumulated absences. • House rules agreement: Y signs the agreement but doesn't respect it.

X refuses to sign the agreement. • Participate in structured activities during the summer: Although these activities are put in place, both siblings do not attend the majority of their classes. [ 15 ] The mother is overwhelmed and feels she is being abused by her daughters. Tantrums are frequent and the adolescents are disrespectful between themselves and towards her. She indicates her distress over the situation, but refuses to consider the placement of her daughters. [ 16 ] The situation rapidly progresses to a crisis point. In September, the mother admits that her daughters have total control over her.

She decides to stop giving in to their demands. As one measure, she cuts off their cell phone time, saying that she will reconsider paying if they are respectful and do chores. [ 17 ] The adolescents become physically aggressive towards their mother and join in to assault her. Y breaks a door. They threaten her if she doesn't furnish them with cell phone minutes. She flees the home and asks that her daughters be immediately removed from the home. [ 18 ] The Court entrusts the adolescents in a rehabilitation center on a provisional basis.

In this milieu, they conform to the rules and their behaviours are acceptable. Notwithstanding, the needs for intensive rehabilitation remain. Both adolescents have severe anger management problems and resist recognizing the importance of their difficulties.

[ 19 ] The mother commences participation in the A program, which aids with communication and anger management. She appreciates the program and anticipates the integration of her daughters shortly. [ 20 ] Although the mother is present for her daughters and is willing to participate in the measures, the worker notes the following: However, Ms A still has difficulties maintaining a clear message to her daughters concerning their placement in a reception center. She wants to have control over where her daughters are being placed and does not agree with the way the child care workers intervene with her daughters.

Ms A can also send them unclear messages about the type of interventions that were offered to them and seems to find it easier to blame the situation of our services. Therefore, the girls get mixed messages and are not taking responsibility for their actions. Ms A will need to send an obvious message to Y and X in order for them to really make some behavioural changes. The whole family needs to realize that the girls are now in a reception center because of their behaviour rather than blaming Youth Protection. (Court report, p. 7) [ 21 ] The father's cooperation is inconsistent and minimal.

He resists his daughters being sent to placement, considering that they should live autonomously in an apartment.

This point of view demonstrates not only a poor view of his daughter's basic needs, but also a fundamental lack of understanding as to the core problems to be met. [ 22 ] In view of the admissions, testimony and the reports submitted, the Court is satisfied that the evidence supports the allegations of the motion and justify the revision of the Court order. [ 23 ] The measures are appropriate and reflect the best interests of the adolescents. [ 24 ] It is further appropriate that the Court recommend that the adolescents be together in the same unit and this, notwithstanding the deficiencies of their relationship.

The adolescents must work to integrate the need to respect structure and rules, but also to transfer this in their family environment. The mother's role being to apply an adequate structure, this task is facilitated by these rules being similar for both siblings in placement. [ 25 ] Furthermore, the sibling relationship remains a significant factor in the failure of the reintegration. The facts demonstrate an unhealthy intensity to their interactions, which result either in conflict or in complicity, both expressed in non-appropriate, and increasingly violent and delinquent, ways.

Should the sisters be in the same unit, the intervention can more fully target, and then address, these behavioural issues. [ 26 ] The Court also considers that additional clarification as to the individual and conjoined behaviours of the adolescents will permit to eventually determine if their needs are distinct or require a differentiation of measures. [ 27 ] The goal of the intervention remains the integration of the adolescents with their mother.

The stabilization of their behaviours can no longer solely justify this goal, as it is imperative that the effective changes be clearly reflected in a less structured environment. Their continued development cannot safely suffer another failure. [ 28 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescents are still in danger; [ 31 ] ORDERS the adolescents be placed in a rehabilitation center for a period of 6 months; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the adolescents and their parents undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the adolescents is in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescents and their parents be upon agreement between the parties; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescents be entrusted to the same unit in order to address their sibling behavioural issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescents and their parents for a period of one year; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescents to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures; __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescents Date of hearing: October 10, 2012