2011 QCCQ 7421, 2011 QCCQ 7421

Protection de la jeunesse — 111877 2011 QCCQ 7421 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000226-081 DATE: April 14, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C. working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Youth -and- A, deceased Mother -and- B, deceased Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review of a decision rendered by Roy J. on August 9, 2009, concerning X, born on […], 1995. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the youth is present and represented by a lawyer.

The parents are not present as they are both deceased. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On August 11, 2009, Roy J. ordered the placement of X in a foster home until her majority. Roy J. also recommended that she be placed in C's foster family. Under the law, the youth's security and development were in danger as both of the parents, which names appear on her birth certificate, were deceased and no one was taking care of the child. [ 4 ] The admissions and the testimony of the petitioner prove, on a balance of probabilities, the following new facts. [ 5 ] X was living, since November 2008, in a foster family in city A.

Last fall the youth started to display behavioural problems, such as not coming home and hiding in the community when her foster parents were looking for her. This led to one of many changes in foster families. The youth was entrusted to five different foster families within a period of six months. It is reported that X displayed the same behavioural issues with each family, added to the fact she doesn't attend school. This led, on February 8, 2011, to a compulsory provisional order entrusting the youth to a rehabilitation centre.

X is presently entrusted to the rehabilitation centre A and is functioning well within the structured environment. [ 6 ] The evidence tendered demonstrates that X has difficulty respecting rules when she is not in a reception centre. She cannot presently evolve in a family setting. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks a six-month placement in a rehabilitation centre.

The youth doesn't oppose to the proposed measure. [ 8 ] When consulting the decisions previously rendered concerning the youth, the Court cannot help but notice that since birth she has known much instability as well as abandonment. In such a context, it is not abnormal to develop a sense of learned helplessness.

The shunting from one foster family to another certainly doesn't help X develop a durable bond with a significant adult. [ 9 ] It is important to take note of the essential principles that apply to a case like the one at bar. First,

section 3 of the Youth Protection Act enacts that: Decisions made under this Act must be in the interest of the child and respect his rights. In addition to the moral, intellectual, emotional and material needs of the child, his age, health, personality and family environment and the other aspects of his situation must be taken into account. [ 10 ] Secondly,

section 4 provides that: Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible.

Moreover, the parents' involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. If, in the interest of the child, returning the child to the family is impossible, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 11 ] J. Roy's order rendered in 2009 was aimed at providing stability and continuity of care to the youth. Obviously, this goal hasn't been achieved considering that numerous stays in foster families have failed.

The Court believes that the Director of Youth Protection has to work with the youth in order to get at the root of her behavioural problems. A recommendation that X be sent in a reception centre by stating that she must work on her problematic behaviour isn't sufficient. The youth must benefit from further aid and counselling in order to have something to look forward in the future. [ 12 ] To that effect, the petitioner states that X has an aunt and brother who live in city B. She wishes to have some contacts with these relatives.

The Court believes that the D.Y.P. must explore this avenue in order to, at least, promote contacts with them while she is in city B. [ 13 ] Undoubtedly, X's situation presents many challenges but the D.Y.P. must put time and energy in order to give her the hope she needs and deserves. In that sense, a majority placement certainly doesn't mean the end of the D.Y.P.'s work. [ 14 ] Everything must be put in place to develop encouraging life prospects for the youth.

If not, the result will be one of continuous acting out on her part. [ 15 ] The Court believes that the proposed period in a rehabilitation centre will allow X to learn how to respect rules.

This will be beneficial provided the D.Y.P. does its part by building a positive life project, which could give this youth the hope she deserves. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development X, born on […], 1995, are still endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a reception centre for a period of six months; [ 20 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to promote contacts between the youth and her aunt and brother who live in City B; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth for a period of six months; [ 22 ] MAINTAINS all the conclusions rendered by Roy J. on August 11, 2009 concerning the placement until the youth reaches her majority; [ 23 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Denis Trottier

Legal Aid city C Lawyer for the youth Date of hearing: April 5, 2011