2016 QCCQ 9503, 2016 QCCQ 9503

Protection de la jeunesse — 164021 2016 QCCQ 9503 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000696-153 DATE: April 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOOCIAL WORKER], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, presently residing at the Centre de readaptation A at […] in Town B, district B, [...] Adolescent -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at […] in Town C, district A, [...] Party -and- MR B, domiciled and residing […] in Town D, district B, [...] Party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for 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 (sections 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by Laflamme J. on December 10, 2015, concerning X born on [...], 2001, by which the adolescent was entrusted to her aunt for a period of one year. The Director is now seeking that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center until the end of August 2016. [ 2 ] The adolescent is present and represented by her lawyer.

She admits that her security and development remain in danger and she does not contest the recommendations sought by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 3 ] The adolescent’s mother died two years ago. On December 10, 2015, Mrs A the youth’s aunt as well as Mr B the youth’s biological father were both granted the status of party pursuant

section 81, subparagraph 3 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 4 ] At the court hearing, Mrs A as well as Mr B were both absent although they were duly served. Considering she is no longer willing and able to care for the adolescent, Mrs A informed the applicant that she didn’t intend to be present in court. [ 5 ] As for Mr B, the applicant tried to reach him in Town D on a few occasions, to no avail.

The applicant was told that Mr B was heading to Town C the day before court with the clear intent to come back in Town D the same day. [ 6 ] Counsel for the adolescent argued that it was in the best interest of his client to proceed in the absence of Mr B, considering the importance for X to know the orientation of the Director regarding her place of return after her stay at the rehabilitation center. [ 7 ] The Court therefore ordered to proceed in the absence of these two parties.

Moreover, considering the breakdown of the aunt’s relationship with the adolescent, the Court believes that the status of party given to Ms A must be withdrawn accordingly. THE FACTS [ 8 ] The adolescent has many ties to the community of Town D. She lived there with her grandmother, then with her father.

Following the adolescent’s difficult behaviour at her father’s, he entrusted her to his sister Mrs A in Town C. Afterwards, the youth continued to display behavioural disturbance which led to the last court order. [ 9 ] In fact, on December 10, 2015, Bélanger J. declared the security and development of the adolescent in danger due to serious behaviour disturbance. She was then entrusted to her aunt A for a period of one year. Despite the adolescent’s behaviour, the aunt then felt she could supervise and care for the youth. [ 10 ] Since the last judgment, the youth remains sad and is acting out in different ways.

She has continued showing behavioural problems such as skipping class and consuming cannabis on a daily basis. She also refused to comply with house rules set by the aunt. Despite the attempt of the applicant to make her aware of her dire situation, the adolescent did not show any change in her behaviour. In fact, the same day that X met with the applicant promising to change, she got in a fist fight with another teenager. [ 11 ] On April 7, 2016, this led to immediate protective measures and to a provisional compulsory order in a rehabilitation center.

The applicant contacted Mr B who then agreed with a provisional order in a rehabilitation center, but expressed reservation to pursue such type of care after April. The applicant and him had a difference of opinion has to the handling of X’s situation. The applicant has tried to reach Mr B afterwards, to no avail. [ 12 ] The above-mentioned evidence must be viewed as new facts according to

section 95 Y.P.A. Consequently, the Court considers that the security and the development of the adolescent are still in danger and is thus authorized to review the decision previously rendered. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 13 ] As previously mentioned, the Director of Youth Protection requests that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center until August 31, 2016. The adolescent does not contest this measure. [ 14 ] X is introverted and has trust issues. This makes it difficult for her to open up to others.

The evidence shows that she is still grieving the loss of her mother and that she uses cannabis as a coping mechanism. [ 15 ] Despite the last court order, the Court knows very little about the Mr B. Some information gathered in the revision report suggests that he might be struggling with excessive alcohol consumption. According to the applicant, Mr B has instituted proceedings in order to be legally recognized as X’s father.

However, the proceedings have not been served to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 16 ] The applicant has made a request for assistance of a delegate of the Director of Youth Protection in Town D. The request has been approved but no one has been assigned to X’s case, as of yet. [ 17 ] The applicant is well aware that the adolescent’s roots are in Town D and that X is longing for a sense of belonging. Therefore, the favored approach is certainly for X to live in Town D.

However to do so, the assistance from Town D social services is essential. [ 18 ] The evidence tendered convinces the Court that the adolescent needs a structured environment. It would be a recipe for failure to entrust her to family in Town D, as of yet. This being said, the Director must continue to reach out to X by providing her the possibility of a family or extended family environment at the end of her stay at the rehabilitation center, provided the youth is willing to make the necessary behaviour changes. [ 19 ] Assistance from the Director of Youth Protection in Town D is overdue.

The applicant must act in a timely manner in order to respect the adolescent’s rights and also to give her hope. Moreover, as of yet, services have not been complete. It is imperative that the adolescent be provided with counselling for her grief and that an assessment be done regarding her drug consumption. [ 20 ] The Director cannot place undue reliance on the rehabilitation center. It must also do its part. [ 21 ] For her part, X must try to accept authority and open up about her feelings. She must also address her possible addiction to cannabis. Only then will progress be possible.

FOR THESES REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent remain endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center until August 31, 2016; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and Mr B be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities; [ 26 ] ALLOWS the adolescent to visit Town D either in her family, extended family or in a foster family provided that the situation of the adolescent allows it and provided proper verifications are made by the D.Y.P. in regards to the people who will be in charge of the adolescent; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and Mr B until August 31, 2016; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive specific health care services notably services from a psychotherapist as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be assessed in regards to her drug consumption and that she receives services for as long as

deemed necessary by the professional; [ 30 ] ORDERS that Mr B actively participates in the measures to put and end to the situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that Mr B remain sober while in the adolescent’s presence; [ 32 ] ORDERS that Mr B take the necessary measures to ensure that the adolescent is not in the presence of intoxicated people; [ 33 ] ALLOWS the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life in regards to the evolution of the situation in general, the professional-client privilege will remain for the rest; [ 34 ] WITHDRAWS the status of party to Mrs A; [ 35 ] ALLOWS the D.Y.P. to take all the decisions concerning the adolescent’s health, schooling, sport and other activities; [ 36 ] ORDERS that all measures apply until August 31, 2016; [ 37 ] ORDERS the police to participate in the execution of the present court order; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present order. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the adolescent Date of hearing: April 21, 2016