2013 QCCQ 19375, 2013 QCCQ 19375

Protection de la jeunesse — 137888 2013 QCCQ 19375 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004554-138 DATE: October 23, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 1999 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning X, born on […], 1999. [ 2 ] The motion alleges that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbances, for which voluntary measures are in force since March 2013.

The Director recommends the application of protective measures for one year and principally, that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center. [ 3 ] The parties consign their positions to the Court file and consent to the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection initially evaluates the situation of the adolescent in February 2013. At that time, she resides with her parents and four siblings. [ 6 ] The Director observes that the adolescent exhibits continual behavioural difficulties since her childhood.

In 2012, a mental health evaluation concludes to diagnoses of attachment disorder and explosive intermittent oppositional defiant disorder. At home, she is physically and verbally violent, while refusing to respect authority. In the year preceding the Director's implication, she runs away from home four times. [ 7 ] The parents are overwhelmed by their daughter's behaviours and recognize no longer being able to assume her needs for structure and supervision.

They also cite that the intensity of the adolescent's situation impact negatively on the family dynamic. [ 8 ] In March 2013, the parties sign an agreement on voluntary measures, providing measures of aid and assistance for one year, including the placement of the adolescent in a rehabilitation center. [ 9 ] In this milieu, the adolescent continues to exhibit impulsive and high-risk behaviours. She defies the rules and rejects attempts to structure her behaviours. She exhibits rigidity and a need to control her environment, and is regularly in situations of conflict with the educators.

It is oftentimes necessary to have recourse to physical contention and isolation procedures to control her impulsive and dangerous reactions. [ 10 ] The team of educators attempts numerous strategies to appease the adolescent's behaviours and respond to her needs for a clear and coherent environment, but this, with only mitigated success. The adolescent is little available for any introspection on her behaviours.

As well, the language barrier impedes the efficacy of the intervention. [ 11 ] In September, the gravity of the situation results in the transfer of the adolescent to an intensive structure unit, where she remains at present. The impact is positive, as there are fewer conflicts with other youths and no violence. As well, the adolescent makes herself available for calm discussion, for the first time since her placement. [ 12 ] Although there are contacts between the adolescent and her family since her placement, no visits occur.

The parents consider that home visits can only occur once their daughter's behaviours diminish to the point where they can offer the supervision she requires in the home environment, and be confident that the other members of the family are secure in her presence. [ 13 ] The adolescent benefits from an evaluation with Centre A in October and is presently on a waiting list for services.

The parties expect that the results of the evaluation will help in focusing the interventions with the adolescent and therefore allow a more effective response to her needs. [ 14 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbances. [ 15 ] As the evidence demonstrates that the adolescent's needs for rehabilitation are significant, the Court endorses the measures put forth by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the her best interests, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger regarding a situation of serious behavioral disturbances; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to themselves and the adolescent to put an end to the situation in which the security and the development are in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end

to the situation in which the security or the development of the adolescent are in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receives specific health care and health services, namely a psychiatric evaluation and a follow-up; [ 24 ] ALL THESE measures for a period of one (1) year; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: October 23, 2013