2012 QCCQ 13481, 2012 QCCQ 13481

Protection de la jeunesse — 124666 2012 QCCQ 13481 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] No: 525-41-024477-119 DATE: August 20, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born […], 1995 - 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 August 20, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered by the honourable Daniel Lavery on May 18, 2011, ordering that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of three months and that the family be provided with a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent remained in a rehabilitation centre until his full reintegration into the family home; • While in the rehabilitation centre, the adolescent abided by the rules and expectations; • In August 2011, the adolescent began attending the A program and is engaged in regular weekly meetings; • On August 18, 2011, the adolescent was fully reintegrated home; • The father has not participated in a parenting program, but the family is receiving the services A; • Since the adolescent’s return home, safety plans have been put in place to address the issues of past sexualized behaviours such that the adolescent now has a room in the upstairs level of the home; • The father’s relationship with his partner’s, Mrs.

C, is conflictual; • On two occasions, for short periods of time, the father moved out of the home and left the adolescent in the care of his partner; • The father and his partner are attending couple counselling; • Complex family dynamics remain to be addressed with regards to the adolescent’s relationship with his siblings and step-siblings.

[ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to his parents’ care, taking judicial notice that the adolescent will be residing with his mother. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained with the family until the adolescent’s age of majority, […], 2013. [ 5 ] The parents admit the facts alleged in the motion and consent to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection.

The mother states that she will be leaving for city A, [province A], with X tomorrow and that she has enrolled him in school. [ 6 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. The adolescent states that he intends to pursue his studies. [ 7 ] The Court also read the report the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that the adolescent has completed the A program which addressed is past sexualized behaviours and that their only remains one meeting to take place with his victim, meeting which will be scheduled shortly.

The relationship between X and his father continues to be strained and therefore he had decided to reside with his mother. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to his parents’ care with a social follow-up until his age of majority.

Considering the adolescent’s age and stage of development, DYP will support the adolescent and his mother during the integration process. [ 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 his parents; [ 14 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent will be residing with his mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS the adolescent to refrain from any type of inappropriate sexualized behaviour towards others; [ 16 ] ORDERS the adolescent to complete the A program and notes that one meeting remains to be held; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be allowed to exchange information with the adolescent's treating professionals; [ 18 ] ORDERS the adolescent and his parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 19 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and his family until his age of majority, […], 2013. [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of AYouth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 21 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed September 18, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement (Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection) Me Maria Choquette Stuart (Counsel for the adolescent) Date of hearing: August 20, 2012