2017 QCCQ 18266, 2017 QCCQ 18266

Protection de la jeunesse — 178508 2017 QCCQ 18266 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-030851-166 DATE : November 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2003 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, 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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on August 9, 2016, ordering a rehabilitation centre placement for six months with the authorization to immediately begin progressive reintegration into her parents’ care along with a social follow up and therapeutic services for one year. [ 2 ] The Director submits that an extension of the current order is necessary considering that the adolescent continues to require services as a result of persistent depressive symptoms as well as an episode of suicidal ideations.

In addition, the parents have yet to establish and maintain cohesive structure and limits in their respective home environments. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is asking to maintain the adolescent in her parents’ care with a social follow-up as well as other corrective measures for six months. [ 4 ] The mother admits the majority of the allegations and agrees with the Director’s recommendations as stated. [ 5 ] The father agrees with the social follow-up as well but asks the Court to consider a longer period of time in order to cover the end of the school year and the beginning of summer, approximately nine months rather than the recommended six. [ 6 ] The adolescent reluctantly consents to the Director’s recommendation although in her opinion, the measures are not truly necessary.

That being said, she accepts to cooperate with social services for the recommended six months but objects to any proposed extension. The Situation [ 7 ] The first year of high school proved to be a difficult transition for the adolescent who did not receive the support services that had initially been promised at [High School A]. In June 2017, a fellow student reported that the adolescent had expressed on social media the intent to commit suicide. An emergency consultation concluded that there was no immediate risk and a referral for a psychiatric assessment was proposed but initially refused by the adolescent.

Despite her difficulties, the adolescent attended school consistently and successfully completed her academic year. [ 8 ] Concerns persisted over the summer around the adolescent’s tendency to isolate herself socially, as evidenced by her refusal to participate in organized activities.

[ 9 ] Considering her difficulties at her first high school, the adolescent requested and obtained a transfer to [High School B] for the start of the current academic year. She expresses being happy at school and socially active. She testifies that her academic results are more than satisfactory. The social worker confirms her results and adds that she has access to a guidance counsellor if she feels the need to consult. [ 10 ] The parents have been participating in therapy to address their difficulties with communication and co-parenting, among which includes providing sufficient structure.

The social worker is of the opinion that both parents “… have a difficult time having X meet their expectations [of her] and setting limits. They tend to be careful around her not wanting to make her upset and having to deal with her anger and risk her self-harming. [1] ” [ 11 ] Over the past year, the adolescent has engaged in therapeutic services on a consistent basis. At her therapist’s request, the adolescent has since agreed to a psychiatric assessment in order to assist in understanding and managing persistent feelings of depression and sadness.

The request has been processed and a first meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2017. [ 12 ] With respect to the length of the proposed measure, the adolescent testifies that her academic performance is a strong indication that a measure beyond six months is not necessary. She explains that her father’s concern regarding the end of the school year is unjustified considering her results. She adds that she works hard during exams and continuing services would simply add more stress during that period.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 13 ] The evidence produced with the consent of the parties establishes that an extension of the social-follow up is in fact necessary. Although the situation has improved, concerns remain that justify the Director’s continued intervention, namely, the persistence of the adolescent’s depressive symptoms as well as the implementation of cohesive and structured parenting. [ 14 ] The period of time suggested by the Director to achieve the identified objectives is reasonable and in the adolescent’s best interest.

Although the father’s concerns are certainly understandable, the adolescent’s testimony was particularly compelling and deserves due consideration.

Her active participation in therapy, her consent to a psychiatric assessment as well as her adherence to the extension of the current measures for six months despite her initial reluctance are all factors that will foster her cooperation and consequently enhance her progress. [ 15 ] The Director’s proposal effectively addresses the issues identified by the evidence and reflects the needs and the best interest of the adolescent. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the adolescent is still endangered for the reason initially declared; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to the care of her parents; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school daily unless she is in possession of a medical note from a physician; [ 21 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the her consent, ORDERS that the adolescent participate in individual therapy for as long as deemed necessary by the treating professional and follow through with any recommendations made; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to participate in counselling to effectively co-parent; [ 23 ] ORDERS that adolescent receive health services required, namely a full psychiatric assessment and RECOMMENDS that the recommendations from that assessment be followed; [ 24 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the adolescent’s and the parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to exchange information with relevant treating professionals working with the family; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of 6 months.

SIGNED IN CITY A On November 22, 2017

__________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Léandre Dubé-Laberge Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: November 9, 2017 KO/lf