2011 QCCQ 16352, 2011 QCCQ 16352

Protection de la jeunesse — 115472 2011 QCCQ 16352 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-024863-110 DATE: October 26, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1994 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 26, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the adolescent declared compromised under

section 38, paragraph f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The adolescent was the subject of three different sets of voluntary measures signed between 2009 and 2011, for issues related to the adolescent’s behavioural issues and to the mother and the adolescent’s aggressive relationship; • The adolescent continues to display behavioural issues while in the care of her mother; • The adolescent does not respect the mother’s authority; • The mother has difficulties being consistent with the adolescent and makes excuses when the latter misbehaves; • Concerns remain that the adolescent and the mother could be physically aggressive towards one another during an altercation; • In March 2011, the adolescent requested to be seen by a psychologist; • The mother recognizes the need to get continuous support from Social services;

• The father has not been involved in the interventions of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up until her age of majority, […], 2012. [ 5 ] The mother admits the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. The mother testifies that the adolescent's behaviour has improved, but that she still needs the support of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion.

She agrees to collaborate with the social follow-up until her age of majority. She is in secondary four and wants to continue her studies in the sciences. The adolescent also agrees to undergo in psychological evaluation. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], human relations agent, and read the report the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that the adolescent has felt depressed and asked to see a psychologist. Furthermore, that there has been physical altercations between the adolescent and her mother and this violence must be addressed.

The mother was victim to conjugal violence and the adolescent was a witness to this when she was young. The father is not very implicated in his daughter’s life and therefore does not provide the guidance and structure she needs. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up until her age of majority.

It will be important for the adolescent to explore the underlying reasons behind her aggressive behaviours and her changing moods if she wants to reach her full potential. [ 9 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are compromised. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the adolescent, X; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her mother cease all physical and verbal aggression towards each other; [ 15 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and the adolescent take steps to address their issues stemming from conjugal violence; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the mother and the adolescent collaborate with the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection and meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent respect her mother’s rules and authority; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care services required by her situation and more particularly, a psychological evaluation and a psychological follow-up if the adolescent agrees; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent consents to submit to random drug testing; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family until her age of majority, […], 2012; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 27, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement

(Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Date of hearing: October 26, 2011