2015 QCCQ 19699, 2015 QCCQ 19699

Protection de la jeunesse — 157062 2015 QCCQ 19699 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030212-153 DATE: November 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on: [...], 1999 The Director of Youth Protection A applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the adolescent be declared to be in danger. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection ( the Director ) alleges the following: 3.1. since around March 2015, the adolescent has suicidal ideations, depression symptoms and is self harming; 3.2. the adolescent also misses school frequently; 3.3. the adolescent reports that she misses school because she is targeted by other students and does not feel like getting out of bed;

3.4. on April 18, 2015, when the adolescent was alone at home, she contacted the emergency services as she had suicidal ideations and she was brought to the Hospital by ambulance; 3.5. on April 20, 2015, the adolescent was discharged from the Hospital but it was recommended that she attend the clinic of the Montreal Children’s Hospital for follow up; 3.6. on May 7, 2015, the adolescent presented herself to the clinic of the Montreal Children’s Hospital for follow up and reported that she continued to have suicidal ideations; 3.7. consequently, the adolescent was kept at the Montreal Children’s Hospital until June 1, 2015; 3.8. when the adolescent was discharged from the hospital on June 1, 2015, the professionals recommended that she be closely supervised by her parents, that she attend follow up appointments at the Montreal Children’s Hospital and that she and her parents receive services from the CLSC; 3.9. despite these recommendations, the parents have continued to leave the adolescent alone with her 18 year old sister, as they work from around 9h30 to 11pm; 3.10. the adolescent’s sister also has her own issues and cannot provide the required supervision for the adolescent; 3.11. the CLSC workers have had a lot of difficulty contacting the family and setting up an appointment with them; 3.12. a CLSC worker eventually met the family during the month of June 2015 and reported that the parents and the adolescent have refused their services; 3.13. on September 16, 2015, the adolescent self harmed at school by opening a scar in class and she reported to the staff that she had suicidal ideations; 3.14. on September 17, 2015, the adolescent confirmed to the Youth Protection worker that she had suicidal ideations the previous day and that she was feeling very depressed; 3.15. on September 17, 2015, the adolescent agreed for the Youth Protection worker to take her to the hospital and she was kept overnight; 3.16. on September 18, 2015, the Hospital’s social worker reported that the adolescent would be discharged from the Hospital on that day, since she was denying having had suicidal ideations; 3.17. on September 18, 2015, a provisional agreement was signed by the parents and the adolescent for the adolescent to be placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of 30 days; 3.18. however, the adolescent no longer wants to remain in a rehabilitation centre; 3.19. the adolescent is ambivalent about receiving services and acknowledging her issues; 3.20. the parents minimize the adolescent’s mental health issues and have difficulty understanding them; 3.21. given that the adolescent is not receiving adequate supervision at home nor enough emotional support, on September 24, 2015, immediate protective measures were applied for the adolescent to remain in a rehabilitation centre; [ 3 ] As explained later, X is currently entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

The Director was initially recommending that X remain in placement for the next year. [ 4 ] Today, after discussions between the parties and particularly between the adolescent and the Director, the latter is recommending that X remain in placement until the end of the school year with as much contact as possible (weekends, overnights…) depending on how the situation evolves.

The Director also recommends a social follow-up for one year along with secondary recommendations. [ 5 ] X, assisted by her attorney, and the parents are present. [ 6 ] X expresses the view that her first choice would be to return home but that she accepts the recommendations, especially if visits are favoured, as set out above. [ 7 ] The parents state that they want their daughter home.

In essence, what the Court understands from their short testimony and the numerous reports filed as evidence, is they do not see the need for placement and agree to whatever services are required to have their daughter at home. [ 8 ] As stated, numerous DYP, hospital and school reports were filed as evidence. The Court principally retains from these documents the following facts. [ 9 ] X lives with her parents and siblings.

Her parents are hard working with very strong values and expectations. [ 10 ] X has been going through bouts of depression over the last couple of years but things got worse this past winter following various conflicts at school. X came to have very dark thoughts and even contemplated committing suicide. [ 11 ] Various school professionals became concerned for X, including the psychologist and teachers. X started missing school more and more.

[ 12 ] During spring of 2015, X was hospitalized on a few occasions due to suicidal ideations. Following X’s discharge in June, a plan was put in place whereby her parents were to closely supervise her at home and the family was to access services through the CLSC. [ 13 ] During the next months, the family did not access services, stating that such were not necessary, particularly because in their view X’s problems were school-related and the school year was now finished.

Yet, X had let on that she was open to services but that her father did not approve. [ 14 ] The Director became involved in August 2015 due to the fact that the family had not accessed services for X following her discharge from hospital, as had been agreed upon. At that time and into the new school year, although X did not appear at risk, her sister reported that she (

X) was cutting herself more than ever and that her parents don’t understand depression, something she herself has suffered from. [ 15 ] Various professionals reported how the parents were very focussed on their daughter’s academics but not in tune with her emotional state and needs. It also came to bear that X, like her sister, has a difficult relationship with their father who can sometimes make negative and hurtful comments. [ 16 ] By mid-September 2015, X was reporting feeling depressed and suicidal.

This led to a short hospitalization followed by a rehabilitation centre placement, first with the family’s consent. [ 17 ] Around September 23 rd , 2015, X no longer wanted to remain in placement. X’s case came to Court and on September 25 2015, she was provisionally allowed to return home provided that her mother supervises her and that she (

X) attends school. [ 18 ] Various meetings took place at school in early October, the school at that point voicing very serious concerns for the adolescent’s state of mind. The parents would essentially respond that their daughter was fine. [ 19 ] On October 21, 2015, X had a tantrum at school and set fire to a stack of papers, one which contained a suicide note. She was hospitalized but refused to collaborate. [ 20 ] On October 29, 2015, the Court ordered that X be entrusted provisionally to a rehabilitation centre despite the youth and her family’s contestation. [ 21 ] Since then, X is stable.

She has done well in placement and in school. Her lawyer reported today that she has not cut herself “in a while”. Although X wants to return home, she realizes that there are still some things that she needs to work on before this can take place. Her hope is to improve communication with her parents and that they will come to better understand her. [ 22 ] Thus, although the Court understands the parents’ wish that their daughter return home, this clearly appears premature today. X’s problems are serious and longstanding.

The root issues behind her self-destructive behaviour and difficult relationship with her parents (her father in particular) still need to be addressed. X is stable for the first time in a long time.

It is now time to work on the issues and not rush the situation, with consequences that could be serious. [ 23 ] The Court has urged the parents to work hand in hand with the Director and other professionals to identify the problems and solve them, in their daughter’s best interest. [ 24 ] For these reasons, the Court first must conclude that X’s security or development is compromised due to her behaviour problems and that an extension of placement is needed in her best interest.

CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X is in danger for behavioural problems. [ 27 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 28 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30 th , 2016; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the reintegration of X at the parents’ home whenever the situation allows it; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a daily basis unless medically justified; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the family receive services from the Transcultural clinic at the Montreal Children’s Hospital; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that X continues to access services for her mental health and follow the recommendations of the treating professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the family collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS a person working for Centre A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and the family; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ( save the placement) ;

[ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. M e Myriam De Blois Attorney for the applicant M e Michel Leclerc Attorney for the adolescent Judgment rendered verbally on November 20, 2015 CL/nl