2019 QCCQ 14829, 2019 QCCQ 14829

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910451 2019 QCCQ 14829 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000804-176 DATE: August 9, 2019 (written judgment rendered on August 16, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother B, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong the decision rendered on August 21, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on […], 2001.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre for one year with specific health care and health services such as a psychological evaluation and psychological follow-up, if recommended. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that X’s situation is still in danger and require rehabilitation services with a reintegration under her parent’s care as soon as the situation allows it.

The DYP also recommends the Court to order that X receive specific health care to address her drinking problem and that the family receive the services of an external educator. [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. According to the father, she went camping with X’s siblings. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel. He considers his daughter is doing better and as his spouse, he wishes his daughter come back at home. He agrees to receive services from the DYP at home. [ 5 ] The adolescent is present and represented by Me Boudreau.

She contests the suggested measures and she wants to be back at home with her parents. Historical situation [ 6 ] On August 9, 2017 , the Court was seized with a motion for provisional measures and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 7 ] On September 6, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 16 years old. The evidence revealed that the youth had an alcohol consumption issue and she started to consume at 8 years old.

She also had a drug addiction issue as she started smoking weed on a daily basis at 11 years old, and she was also consuming marijuana on a daily basis since an unknown period. She often got intoxicated to the point that she did not remember what’s happened and put herself in danger by being the victim of sexual and physical abuses. The Court also noted that during the last eight months, she was hospitalized seven times for suicidal ideations. X refused the services from the DYP and the parents were not able to impose structure and supervision at home to put an end to this situation.

During her provisional placement, she tried to commit suicide twice and was transferred to a more secure unit. Her brother committed suicide in March 2017. She had difficulties to express her emotions regarding her many traumas, and her parents did not inquire about her feelings.

The Court said: “considering all the specific needs of the youth, it’s urgent to provide her with a stable, safe and structured setting, psychological and medical services.” [ 8 ] For all those reasons, the Honourable Denyse Leduc declared the security and development of X in danger [1] and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until June 26, 2018, with a reintegration with her parents if the situation allows it. The Court also ordered the

DYP to provide a medical, psychological and psychiatric evaluations of the youth and follow-ups if required, and ordered that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the youth and her family. [ 9 ] On July 6, 2018 , after few attends to proceed on provisional measures, and a long challenged hearing, the Court entrusted the adolescent under her parent’s care and order to provide to the youth all the medical services required by her condition. [ 10 ] On August 21, 2018 , the Court was seized with the revision. The evidence revealed that X had difficulties to follow the program in the unit.

She had a private tutor to do her schoolwork and in March 2018, she was hospitalized again for suicidal ideation. She ran away from the unit on multiple occasions. The parents collaborated with the DYP, but the worker considered them passive in their intervention with their daughter, which was denied by the parents. The adolescent was described as very intelligent, but she avoided going to school. She always said that no one understands her nor wishes to help her. She was very resistant to change.

The evidence also showed that each time she came to the North, she runs away from her two escorts in Town B during her transfer to Town C. The mother even helped her to hide from the police officers. Since the provisional measures rendered on July 6, multiple events have occurred including three breaches of condition under YCJA [2] and all of them occurred while X was intoxicated (driving a four-wheeler, disturbing the peace and assault on a police officer and another person). The father collaborated with the police during those events.

The mother agreed to receive services from an external educator, and according to the DYP, this service would be available in six weeks. [ 11 ] The Court adds: [18] At home, when she is sober, she does very fine. She functions well with an adequate structure, which the parents are not always capable of providing her. Without the structure, she uses alcohol. This drinking may be related to the loss of her brother.

She needs to take time to grieve her brother’s suicide. [ 12 ] The mother testified her desire to have her daughter back at home and her desire to collaborate with an external educator on the condition that he speaks Inuktitut. She also said that her daughter needs services from a psychologist to help her to deal with her emotions. [ 13 ] The Court concluded: [24] Evidently, the length of the placement requested by the Director will not be enough for the adolescent to agree to work on her problems, to meet regularly with the psychologist and to behave properly in the rehabilitation centre.

No return to the parents will be authorized unless significant improvement in the adolescent’s situation can be observed by the educators over a significant period of time. It is unrealistic to predict that in the next six months the adolescent will be able to do what she has even not begun to do over the last past year.

The family will need the services of an external educator during the adolescent’s visits to her parents and by the end of her placement. [25] The present judgment is in continuation of the judgment rendered by Judge Denyse Leduc on September 6, 2017, that the adolescent and her parents are urged to read again. [ 14 ] The Honourable Lucille Beauchemin maintained X in a rehabilitation centre for one year and ordered that she receive specific health care and health services such as a psychological evaluation and psychological follow-up if recommended.

The Court also recommended that she receive specific services to address her drinking problem and ordered that she attend school or another place of learning. The Court ordered that all the contacts between the youth and her parents be supervised by the DYP with regard to the terms and degree of supervision and monitored by an external educator. Facts 1- X’s situation [ 15 ] The DYP alleges that X is generally doing better as she is doing fine in a well-structured environment provided by the rehabilitation centre in Town A. The most difficult is when she comes in Town B to transfer to Town C to visit her parents.

Each time she runs away from her escort. More precisely, the DYP reports the following events since the last decision. [ 16 ] On August 21, 2018, the day after the court, X was authorized to go in Town C to pick up some belongings and to go back the day after in Town A escorted by her mother. Once in Town C, she refused to leave as scheduled, and after many attempts, she finally went to Town A on August 31, 2018. [ 17 ] On September 20, 2018, she benefited from free time on the community of Town A and went back stoned on cannabis.

Mr. [social worker 2], the previous DYP worker, spoke with the unit’s staff about the opportunity to offer her to address her addiction issues through the Healing Center of Town A. [ 18 ] On October 6, 2018, X went in Town B to attend her brother’s funeral. She was supposed to be back on October 10, but she ran away on October 8, and was found on October 18, intoxicated by alcohol, but ran away again from the police. On October 24, a warrant was issued and executed on November 5.

She finally came back to the unit on November 11, 2018. [ 19 ] The Court questioned the DYP worker regarding this brother’s funeral, knowing that another brother deceased in March 2017. The worker answered that she was on seek leave on 2017-2018 and only came back in May 2019, so she can’t say anything about the other one, nor confirm if X really lost two brothers. [ 20 ] On December 4, 2018, she went in Town B to appear at the court for infractions regarding YCJA. Nothing was reported during her stay. [ 21 ] A home visit in Town C was planned for Christmas, from December 21, to January 4.

X was supposed to meet with the educator on December 22, 23 and 24. Following that, she was supposed to meet the DYP every second day. According to the revision

report, she met the DYP worker once and the parents did not want to collaborate. She refused to go back to Town A, a warrant was required and she arrived at the unit on January 9, 2019. [ 22 ] On March 29, 2019, a visit was organized with her mother in Town B at her aunt’s place. The mother was supposed to escort her back to Town A, but travelled with her daughter to Town C on April 5, 2019. Once there, X refused to go back and the DYP authorized her to stay in Town C until April 15, 2019, for Easter. The visit went well. The mother and her daughter reported having spent quality time such as sewing and fishing.

The police intervention was not needed during this stay except when it was time to leave as she still refused. [ 23 ] From May 17 to May 22, 2019, another home visit was planned and everything went well. X accepted to leave without any police intervention. [ 24 ] On June 17, 2019, another visit to Town C was organized, but she ran away in Town B before having her plane to Town C.

During her stay in Town B she consumed alcohol. [ 25 ] Generally, the unit’s staff reported that the beginning of the placement was difficult for X as she displayed suicidal ideation, substances abuse, she had difficulty to express her feelings and she was not respecting the rules. She improved her behaviour during the last three months by showing no signs of intoxication and no violence at the unit. She still needs help to verbalize her emotions. [ 26 ] During her stay at the rehabilitation centre, she did not go to school nor follow any program of learning, because she wished to perform her 200 community hours.

She did it at the Coop Store and at the Family House, but as she did not respect the rules at those places, she continues to perform her community hours in the unit where there is more supervision. [ 27 ] A psychologist started working in Town B for the DYP and met with X in February and March to evaluate her. X participated well to the evaluation and told the psychologist that she enjoy team sports, that she has a strong interest for traditional sewing activities and that she loved the land-based activities such as fishing with her family in Town C area.

The evaluation was not completed because many appointments were missed on both parts. [ 28 ] The report dated on April 11, 2019, contains the following partial conclusions: X continues to present with multiple challenging behaviors. Her psychological profile is indicative of significant depressive and anxiety symptomatology. Somatic complaints and physical symptoms are present as well as social anxiety and difficulty, fear of rejection and distress. In addition, X also presents with elevated sexual concerns, preoccupations and distress.

Information on her current substance use could not be obtained: however, this is an area of past chronic difficulty. X presents with significant emotional instability, an unstable self-image, recurrence of impulsive and reckless behaviors and unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, social withdrawal and fear of humiliation and rejection.

She is a very fragile teenager. [ 29 ] The psychologist who stopped working for the DYP in June 2019, made the following recommendations: 1) If possible, obtaining information on X’s intellectual functioning and recent substance use would be useful in better understanding her profile and in identifying current and future needs. 2) Intensive clinical intervention is recommended to address grieving of brother; depressive and anxiety symptoms, social difficulties as well as consequences of sexual abuse.

X is a fragile teenager who needs and will be needing trusting relationships and guidance. 3) Evaluation and follow-up in psychiatry is also highly recommended. X was previously seen by Dre Michèle Larose, child psychiatrist, in Town B. 4) X will be needing continued support when she transitions to adult services. Coordination and smooth transitioning of services will be of primary importance. [ 30 ] Ms.

Nsame said that according to those recommendations, request was made and Dre Larose, child psychiatrist was supposed to meet X in June, but as she was absent without official leave at that time, X is now on a waiting list for a meeting starting in September. [ 31 ] The DYP worker answers the Court that no other psychologist services (continuation of the evaluation and/or follow-up) were offered to X. Questioned about the reason why psychiatric evaluation of X is still not done, Ms. Nsame answers that it was not possible to do it before the reception of the psychologist’s recommendations.

The Court reminds her that this evaluation was ordered by the Court in September 2017, but she candidly answered that she was on sick leave at that time, so she can confirm it was not done, but she can’t explain why. [ 32 ] Regarding the addiction issues, Ms. Nsame testifies that, as it is written on the report, Mr. [social worker 2] (previous worker) spoke with the unit staff about the possibility for X to benefit from the Healing Center of Town A. Ms. Nsame does not know if it was offered or not and even less if it was accepted or not by X.

She insists on the fact that the services for addiction issues were only recommended by the Court. 2- Situation of the parents [ 33 ] The parents are described as very passive. According to Ms. Nsame, it’s difficult to work with them as they never come to see her at her office. She went few times at their place since her return at work last May, but when she arrives, the father leaves. He is always very polite with her, but never participates to the meetings. [ 34 ] The mother is more present and more available to meet with Ms. Nsame, but, according to her, it’s difficult to do a clinical work with this family.

[ 35 ] Ms. Nsame wrote in her report that: Ms. A informed this delegate during one of the meetings on May 10 th , 2019, that she speaks to her daughter nearly every day and encourages her to behave well. Ms. A did express that she wants X back in her care in the family household. She hopes that X has improved her behaviour at the girls unit and will cope well at home. The mother expresses that there is no structure in her home and that X always gets what she wants. She also expressed that it was difficult for her to supervise X in the community.

However, she feels that X, being more mature, would be able to do the right things. The mother, Ms. A is very involved in her daughter’s situation, for example; she would be the one to visit or escort when an escort was needed from the Village of Town B. The father, Mr. B, is less involved with his daughter when it comes to dealing with the DYP. He is however very present in his daughter’s life when she is in the community. [ 36 ] Questioned about the language of communication with the parents, the DYP worker testifies that the mother speaks English very well.

On this aspect, the father testifies that his wife speaks English better than him and he has the perception that she could communicate with the worker, but he also mentions that his wife is frustrated not being able to be more fluent in English. The evidence revealed that the mother is a teacher in a kinder garden grade in which the teaching is done exclusively in Inuktitut. Also, the mother testifies in August 2018, that she wanted to receive services of an external educator on the condition that this person speaks Inuktitut. [ 37 ] Regarding the supervision at home, Ms.

Nsame considers that in only four months, to be able to see a result, a high level of collaboration of the parents with an external educator is very important. [ 38 ] The worker was brought to testify about the non-availability on a full-time basis external educator in Town C. The person assigned comes from Town B once in a while and informs about his arrival just before leaving the village of Town B. For the village of Town C, the external educator went twice in Town C from May 2018. As the Court was surprised about this frequency, opportunity was given to Ms.

Nsame to correct her testimony, but she confirms this frequency. [ 39 ] Ms. Nsame explained that on those two external educator’s visits in Town C, only one was for X’s family. As soon as Ms. Nsame was made aware of his arrival, she went to X’s parents’ house. No one was there. Later in the day, once the external educator arrived in Town C, she drove him to their house. As before, no one was at home. [ 40 ] The parents are aware that X was supposed to meet with a psychologist, but Ms. Nsame confirms that they were never made aware of the recommendations.

The father testifies being available to participate to meetings with professionals and to escort his daughter to meet with a psychologist and a psychiatrist in another village if needed. He also asks to be informed previously about the meetings because, according to him, the worker always see them without appointment. The father works for the village during the schooling year and supervised the children at the day camp during the summer, so he needs to organize his schedule. [ 41 ] The father admits he never ask for the presence of a translator during the meetings with the worker.

But as he does not understand English, when the worker arrives at his place, he quits the house and leaves his wife alone with the worker. Parties’ position [ 42 ] The DYP submits that it’s urgent to offer services to X and those services are available only at the rehabilitation centre. Considering she will turn 18 years old in four months, it’s now or never! The DYP lawyer reminds the Court that no professional services are available in Town C.

Regarding the translation, the DYP submits that this request is new and was never made before today. [ 43 ] The father’s lawyer submit that the parents never received services as they were supposed to. Despite the decision rendered, the psychological evaluation of X was started only at the end of February 2019, and was not completed. Regarding the translation, for the father’s lawyer it’s easy to see that the father is not able to communicate in English.

Finally, even if the parents would benefit from an external educator, it’s important to consider that the mother is a teacher and the father takes care of the children at the day camp. Doing so, they are able to take care of children and to impose a certain structure. [ 44 ] The youth’s lawyer insists on the fact that a reason is needed to entrust a youth in a rehabilitation centre. According to him, the evidence reveals that some events occurred in Town B and in Town A, but nothing happened in Town C during her home visits, except her refusals to take her plane. No event was reported at home.

According to Me Boudreau nothing justifies maintaining X in a rehabilitation centre and a placement would not respect the prescription of the YPA and would be an unlawful detention. Analysis [ 45 ] X will turn 18 years old in four months. Now it’s more than urgent to offer her services to cope with many traumas she suffered from during her life, and to prepare her to the adult life.

She is in a rehabilitation centre for two years because of the lack of supervision from the part of the parents, because of sexual abuses she was the victim of and because of her behavioural issues (alcohol and drug consumption for many years, violence, suicidal ideations, attempts and hospitalizations and not attending school). With so many behavioural issues since so long, it was obvious that the parents did not offer her the adequate supervision. [ 46 ] The familial situation showed issues on both sides: on the parents’ side and on X’s side.

Doing so, services had to be provided on those two aspects. [ 47 ] The relevant sections of the YPA are the following: 2.3. Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger;

[…] The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. 2.4.

Every person having responsibilities towards a child under this Act, and every person called upon to make decisions with respect to a child under this Act shall, in their interventions, take into account the necessity (1) of treating the child and the child’s parents with courtesy, fairness and understanding, and in a manner that respects their dignity and autonomy; […] (3) of ensuring that the parents have understood the information or explanations that must be furnished to them under this Act; […] (5) of opting for measures, in respect of the child and the child’s parents, which allow action to be taken diligently to ensure the child’s protection, considering that a child’s perception of time differs from that of adults, and which take into consideration the following factors: (

a) the proximity of the chosen resource; (

b) the characteristics of cultural communities; (

c) the characteristics of Native communities, including Aboriginal customary tutorship and adoption. 3. 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. In the case of a Native child, the preservation of the child’s cultural identity must also be taken into account. 5.

Persons having responsibilities regarding a child under this Act must inform him and his parents as fully as possible of their rights under this Act and in particular, of the right to consult an advocate and of the rights of appeal provided for in this Act. In the case of an intervention under this Act, a child as well as his parents must obtain a description of the means and stages of protection and rehabilitation envisaged towards ending the intervention. 8.

The child and the parents are entitled to receive, with continuity and in a personalized manner, health services and social services that are appropriate from a scientific, human and social standpoint, taking into account the legislative and regulatory provisions governing the organization and operation of the institution providing those services, as well as its human, material and financial resources. The child is also entitled to receive, on the same conditions, appropriate educational services from an educational body.

Furthermore, the child and the parents are entitled to be supported and assisted by a person of their choice if they wish to obtain information or when meeting the director or any person the director authorizes. 91. […] Where the tribunal concludes that the rights of a child in difficulty have been wronged by persons, bodies or institutions, it may order the situation to be corrected. 92. Where the tribunal orders the carrying out of a measure with regard to a child, it shall entrust the situation of the child to the director, who shall then see that the measure is carried out.

Every institution and every educational body is required to take all available means to provide the services required to carry out the measures ordered. The same applies to every person and to every other body that agrees to apply such measures. 93. Every decision or order of the tribunal is enforceable as soon as it is rendered and any person contemplated in it must comply therewith without delay. [ 48 ] In August 2018, Justice Beauchemin ordered services and clearly mentioned that her order was in continuation of the one rendered by Justice Leduc one year before.

Those services were needed to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of X were in danger. 1- On the parents' side [ 49 ] The parents always admitted having difficult imposing structure at home. It’s for this reason, Justice Beauchemin ordered that the home visits be monitored by an external educator. With this service, the parents would have received concrete counsels in a concrete situation, in the presence of their daughter. But did the parents benefit from this service?

Not at all. [ 50 ] The Court can’t explain how it’s possible to provide an external educator in the village of Town C only twice in 15 months, the whole without any previous organization of the meetings. For X’s family, only one presence was for them. What kind of service could be offered with such a frequency? How it’s possible to see any improvement, considering that there is no time to evaluate the needs of each

family? How the DYP can reproach to the parents not to collaborate when they are not aware of the presence of the external educator? The mother was clear about the fact that she wishes to work with the external educator. Why this motivation was not taken into consideration to move forward? [ 51 ] The Court concludes that doing so, the DYP failed to respect the decision on two aspects. First, even if ordered, the service has not been provided as it clearly does not exist.

Secondly, as soon as the day after the last decision, the DYP was already in default by authorizing X to go in Town C before going to the unit in Town A and during her stay in Town C, she was not monitored by an external educator in contradiction with the decision. She stayed in Town C for ten days. Fortunately, nothing wrong happened. [ 52 ] Regarding the clinical follow-up, the evidence remains silent about how many times the parents were met. Ms. Nsame reproach to the parents not to come at her office. The father testifies that she come at their place without appointment. Ms.

Nsame did not expose how many meetings she had with the parents, and how many meetings were cancelled. Also she only testifies about the situation since her return in May, as she is not aware of the follow-up done by the previous worker. [ 53 ] The Court is also concerned by the fact that for DYP, the request for translation is a new request. The court file shows that each hearing took place with the assistance of an interpreter. The testimony of the mother, at the revision made in 2018, was clear to the fact that she needs the assistance of a translator.

The Court did not have the opportunity to see the mother this time, but had the opportunity to see the father and it did not take a long time to conclude that he is not able to communicate in English. [ 54 ] Doing so, the Court concludes that the DYP failed to respect the

section 2.4 of the YPA. 2- On X’s side [ 55 ] X, on her side, is known for her difficulties to manage her emotions following her many traumas (physical and sexual abuses, major losses, etc.). To cope with her feelings she consumes drugs and alcohol for many years. She needed to receive services regarding the emotional aspect and regarding her consumption. [ 56 ] The traumas were never addressed, so she continues to consume to hide her distress. As the traumas continue (her brother’s death in February 2019), she continues to consume. It’s known from everyone that it’s very difficult for an adult to quit drinking.

We can just imagine the impact of this consumption on an adolescent and the difficulty it could be for her to quit drinking when this addiction is present since she is 8 years old. [ 57 ] What kinds of services were offered to address this addiction issues? Nothing. To the best, the previous worker spoke with the unit’s staff regarding the possibility to suggest she goes at the Healing Center. [ 58 ] The evidence also revealed that the medical, psychological and psychiatric evaluation ordered by Justice Leduc were not done.

During that time, as no recommendations were set out by the professional, no follow-ups were provided. Justice Beauchemin reiterated the order for a psychological evaluation.

It was only in February 2019, that X was met by the psychologist who was not able to finish her evaluation as she stopped working for the DYP. [ 59 ] Some partial recommendations are known by the DYP since mid-April, but no recommendations were put in place since then, and the parents are not informed of those recommendations. [ 60 ] During that time, X continues to suffer from her unresolved traumas and to have difficulties to deal with her emotions. As Ms. Nsame said, the psychiatric evaluation is needed as we do not exactly know what could help her. The saddest is the fact that Ms.

Nsame did not know that the psychiatric evaluation was ordered two years ago. [ 61 ] It’s easy to say today that the situation did not improve and it’s now or never to offer services to X, when the DYP had two years to offer it, to obtain evaluation from professionals and to start the implementation of the recommendations. During those two years, as nothing was done, her traumas are still not addressed and she suffers as much as before the intervention. Is she supposed to resolve her traumas by herself? [ 62 ] The Court concludes that the DYP failed to provide the appropriate service to X.

The DYP had two reasons to offer those services: because of the prescription of the law and because it was ordered. [ 63 ] The DYP asks that she receive a psychological follow-up, but there is no more psychologist working for the DYP. How can we offer her this follow-up? The Court does not know as the evidence remains silent on this aspect. [ 64 ] It was also ordered that she attend school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skill and autonomy.

She did not go to school because she preferred to perform her community hours, but despite those community hours, she was supposed to follow at least a program for her autonomy. Considering her age, it would have been relevant and she had time to do it because 200 hours divided by 50 weeks gives an average of 4 community hours per week. [ 65 ] The Court concludes that the DYP also failed to respect this order. [ 66 ] Finally, the Court also concludes that the DYP failed to provide aid, counselling and assistance to X and her family. [ 67 ] In

summary, the Court concludes that the previous order was not respected on many aspects and this non-respect constitutes by itself a situation in which the rights of the adolescent are wronged. Moreover her rights have also been wronged in the way that the sections 2.3 a), 2.4 (1) and (3), 92 and 93 were not respected. [ 68 ] Consequently, according to

section 91 in fine , the measures will have to correct this situation. [ 69 ] The evidence reveals that the situation of X, since the last order, is getting better. She is doing better at the rehabilitation centre

and according to the absence of occurrence reports from the police force of Town C, we can say that she is also doing better at home. For sure, she ran away and she frequently refused to take her plane to go back to Town A. That being said, she was not seen intoxicated and she was not charged for any infraction of the YCJA. The reported problems occurred in Town B during her transfer. At this place, she ran away and she was found intoxicated quite each time. [ 70 ] As she will turn 18 soon, she needs to be prepared for the adult life.

As she did not receive any help on this matter at the rehabilitation centre, and considering her interest for the traditional activities, and the involvement of her parents when she is at home, the Court considers that at her age, the only persons able to help her to be prepared, are her parents. [ 71 ] Regarding the other aspects of X’s situation, the Court has on one side, the DYP who requires a placement to be able to offer her appropriate services, which were not offered in two years, and on the other side, the desire of X and her parents to be reunited at home in Town C where there is no service.

Doing so, the Court has to choose between no service and no service! [ 72 ] X’s lawyer sustains that entrusting X at the rehabilitation centre in a way to provide her with services is an administrative reason, which is not a good reason to do so.

The Court shares this position and considers that for the DYP, it’s the easy way. [ 73 ] But considering the best interest of X who deserves to finally address her issues with the appropriate services, and considering that the professionals from Montreal come more frequently in the villages where there is a rehabilitation centre (number of youths, airports, etc.), the Court has no other choice than to maintain X at the rehabilitation centre. The duration of the placement will be very short and the services will have to be provided in a precise delay.

The Court wants her to receive the professional evaluation and that the follow-ups are started before she entrusts her parent’s care, where services at home will have to be provided with a high level of intensity to make up for the time lost. [ 74 ] Finally, the Court will recommend the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate about the lack of services offered to X and the delay to request for those services.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 75 ] GRANTS the application; [ 76 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2001, are still in danger; [ 77 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged; [ 78 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until September 13, 2019, without any reintegration; [ 79 ] ENTRUSTS the youth under her parents' care starting on September 13, 2019; [ 80 ] ORDERS that the implementation of the psychologist recommendations be started within the next two weeks following the verbal decision; [ 81 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a psychiatric assessment of the adolescent within a maximal delay of one month following the verbal decision; [ 82 ] ORDERS the recommendations of the psychiatrist be followed with no delay; [ 83 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 84 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a drug and alcohol addiction assessment of the adolescent within a maximum delay of one month, and all recommendations be followed with no delay; [ 85 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school or any other place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 86 ] ORDERS that the youth and her parents receive the services of an external educator on a weekly basis as minimal frequency with the help of a translator until the end of the actual measure; [ 87 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 88 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her parents; [ 89 ] RECOMMENDS the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate about the lack of services offered to the adolescent and her parents; [ 90 ] INVITES the Commission to make any recommendations she considers appropriate to help the adolescent to receive the services adapted to her conditions; [ 91 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of her representatives; [ 92 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order;

[ 93 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Dates of hearing: August 9, 2019