2016 QCCQ 8034, 2016 QCCQ 8034

Protection de la jeunesse — 163358 2016 QCCQ 8034 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-029077-146 Date: February 5, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 1998 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 5, 2016, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] (the “Act”). [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on February 5, 2015, whereby the now seventeen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with aid, counsel and assistance, until she reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2016. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for revision dated November 19, 2015, are as follows: 3.1. the adolescent remained placed at [group home A] until May 1, 2015; 3.2. since May 1, 2015, the adolescent has been placed at [group home B] with a view towards preparation for independent living; 3.3. the adolescent continues to demonstrate certain behavioural problems; 3.4. on June 11, 2015, the adolescent was caught stealing items of clothing from various stores; 3.5. in July 2015, the adolescent admitted to performing sexual acts on men upon request as she owed them money; 3.6. the adolescent is still in contact with these men; 3.7. the adolescent minimizes the psychological impact that being taken advantage of sexually can have on her; 3.8. the adolescent needs to receive appropriate therapeutic support; 3.9. nonetheless, the adolescent has maintained weekly regular visits with her mother, and these visits go well until something serious is brought up where adolescent will become verbally aggressive; 3.10. the adolescent had a successful summer working at Camp and she will be starting Adult Ed in the new year; 3.11. the adolescent’s situation requires ongoing rehabilitation centre placement and therapeutic services (reproduced with errors and/or

omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director asks the Court to declare that the adolescent’s security and development are in danger not only as result of her serious behavioral disturbances under

Article 38 (

f) of the Act , as previously declared, but also under

Article 38 (d) (1) because the adolescent is subjected to sexual abuse. The Director recommends that she remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, including therapeutic services, until she reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2016. [ 5 ] The parents, who both chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted to having been informed of most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. However, they oppose a finding of endangerment under

Article 38 (d) (1) of the Act . [ 6 ] The adolescent who chose not to appear for the hearing was represented by Me Saad. She expressed the adolescent’s consent to the proposed measures but also argued against a declaration of endangerment under

Article 38 (d) (1) of the Act . [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-5 and D-6 as evidence: D-5: Court report, signed by [Social Worker 1], dated October 22, 2015; D-6: Consent to judgment in the absence of parents. [ 8 ] In

summary, all the parties admit that the adolescent’s placement in a rehabilitation centre remains necessary and recognize the need for corrective measures, including therapeutic services, until she reaches the age of majority. [ 9 ] In fact, the parties initially signed a consent to judgment on January 19 and January 20, 2016 acknowledging and agreeing to the measures required in light of the adolescent’s serious behavioral disturbances. [ 10 ] However, at the hearing, the Director also seeks a declaration regarding endangerment based on sexual abuse. [ 11 ] The only question in dispute is whether the adolescent’s security and development are in danger under

Article 38 (d) (1) of the Act , as alleged by the Director but denied both on behalf of the adolescent and by her parents. [ 12 ]

Article 38 (d) (1) of the Act reads as follows: 38. For the purposes of this Act , the security or development of a child is considered to be in danger if the child is abandoned, neglected, subjected to psychological ill-treatment or sexual or physical abuse, or if the child has serious behavioural disturbances.

In this Act , […] (d) “sexual abuse” refers to (1) a situation in which the child is subjected to gestures of a sexual nature by the child's parents or another person, with or without physical contact, and the child's parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation [2] (emphasis added). [ 13 ] The parents argue that at the time of the alleged abuse, their daughter was already in placement.

They had no control over her activities and were in no position to take any steps to ensure her safety. [ 14 ] Moreover, they immediately reported their daughter’s allegations to the Director and could not have done more to protect their daughter. [ 15 ] As a result, they strongly deny having failed “to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation”. [ 16 ] The Director acknowledges that the parents did everything that they could and could not possibly have done more to protect their daughter under the circumstances. [ 17 ] Moreover, the evidence establishes that the adolescent recanted some of her allegations and when she was brought to the police to file a complaint she neither confirmed nor denied the allegations of sexual abuse. [ 18 ] No charges were brought and no suspects were identified. [ 19 ] The worker could not say who the alleged perpetrators might be, whether they were adults or minors, or whether any of the abuse actually occurred.

There is no concrete information to substantiate the allegations. [ 20 ] Under the circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that the adolescent was subjected to sexual abuse, much less that her parents failed to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 21 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that the adolescent’s security and development are not in danger under

Article 38 (d) (1) of the Act . [ 22 ] However, the fact that the adolescent has been making allegations of sexual abuse, whether they are founded or not, is confirmed both by the worker and the adolescent’s parents and certainly warrants the measures as recommended. THEREFORE, THE COURT:

[ 23 ] GRANTS the motion in part; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain compromised under

Article 38 (

f) of the Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; [ 26 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent receive therapeutic services, as soon as possible; [ 27 ] STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the adolescent to participate and attend consistently for as long as necessary; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for [center A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 32 ] THE WHOLE until she reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2016.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the adolescent TD/vl