2013 QCCQ 11984, 2013 QCCQ 11984

Protection de la jeunesse — 134060 2013 QCCQ 11984 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001178-091 DATE: February 15, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANT 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in Town A […], District A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in Town A […], District A Mother -and- B, presently detained at the detention center in Town B, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review and extension of a decision rendered by Gervais J., on September 25, 2012, concerning X, born on […], 2002. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father and the child are present and each represented by their lawyer.

The mother is absent although she was duly notified. The applicant tried to convince the mother to come to court and bought her a plane ticket. Finally, the day before court, the mother called the applicant while under the influence of alcohol and confirmed that she would not be attending court. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On April 28, 2009, Lemoine J. declared the security and the development of the child in danger mainly due to the parents' heaving drinking and the father's violent behaviour.

The child along with her siblings was entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 4 ] Following that first court order, three different court orders each reviewing and extending the previous one entrusted X to a foster family. In light of the fact that the mother had y et to make positive changes in her life and that the father was still in jail, on April 3, 2012, Leduc J. ordered that X and her siblings be entrusted to a foster family until majority. [ 5 ] Immediately after J.

Gervais's decision, the child had an outburst of anger and became physically aggressive towards the Youth Protection worker. She refused to take the plane to go back to Town C and the police had to be called. It took a few hours to calm her down. [ 6 ] Afterwards, X continued to show strong opposition in her foster family as well as in class. Consequently, the family fostering X was no longer willing to foster the child until her majority.

Therefore, on September 25, 2012, Gervais J. reviewed the previous judgment and ordered that the child be entrusted to another family for a period of one year in order to develop a new life plan for her. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the behaviour of the child went from bad to worse. She would run away from school and when she was there, she displayed violent behaviour towards her peers and her teacher. Another foster family became overwhelmed, as the child would throw tantrums when she didn't get her own way and refused to follow house rules. Moreover, the child would literally not come home.

She was removed from that foster family and sent to Town C to stay with an aunt, with the same results in regards to her negative behaviour.

[ 8 ] On December 11, 2012, this led to a provisional compulsory foster care order of the youth in a rehabilitation center. During the last few weeks, the staff members at the rehabilitation center have noticed negative behaviour on behalf of the child, such as violent outbursts when she is contradicted. However, they are confident they can help the child express herself in a non-aggressive manner. [ 9 ] The mother hasn't called her daughter at the rehabilitation center. The father who just got out of jail keeps contact with his daughter.

These contacts remain positive for the child. [ 10 ] The evidence shows that the child's behavioural problems are such that they prevent, as of yet, the development of a valid life plan and they constitute new facts according to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. Consequently, it authorizes the Court to revise the previous order. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 11 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests a six-month placement of the child in a rehabilitation center. [ 12 ] The child disagrees with the proposed measure. She would prefer to stay with an aunt. The father doesn't contest the measures sought by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] It is undeniable that the strong opposition of the child is a result of the parents' neglect and lack of care.

This being said, her behaviour problems require more guidance and structure that cannot be provided by a foster family. X needs professional support in order to understand the importance to respect basic rules and to express her emotions in a healthier manner. In this regard, a psychological assessment is overdue. It is urgent for everyone trying to help X to better understand her personality and her emotional functioning.

In that sense, the Director of Youth Protection must fulfill its mission and should not wait for the Court to order such an assessment. [ 14 ] X needs structure, professional help and a re-education program.

Only then will she be able to face the challenge of integration in a foster family. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born […], 2002, are still endangered; [ 18 ] REVISES the decision rendered on September 25, 2012; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a reception center for a period of six months; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the reception center is a specialized foster home; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the parents for a period of 12 months; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother report on a regular basis to the D.Y.P. in order to inform him of the current situation; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child undergo a psychological assessment as soon as possible and that the conclusions be applied in the best interest of the child; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to frequency and modalities; [ 25 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the child M e Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: February 5, 2013