2010 QCCQ 15285, 2010 QCCQ 15285

Protection de la jeunesse — 102306 2010 QCCQ 15285 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth chamber N o : 635-41-000271-095 DATE: April 30, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1994 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A working in City A, Quebec, district A Applicant -and- A, residing in a Transition House in City B, Province A, district B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the extension of the decision rendered on July 20, 2009, concerning X, born on […], 1994. [ 2 ] The youth and her mother are represented, but the mother, presently detained, is absent. The father is undeclared. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue given the admissions made by the teenager.

She agrees with the recommendation made by the Director of Youth Protection to extend her foster care, in a rehabilitation centre for a period of three months. As for the mother, she understands the motives underlying the recommendation, but does not consent. She wants her daughter to reintegrate the residence of the maternal grandmother, immediately. III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] On July 20, 2009, the Court ordered the foster care of the child in a rehabilitation centre, for a period of nine months. The mother, as the case today, was still in detention, serving a sentence for murder.

The teenager was thus living with relatives, and manifested as the relatives, behavioural problems. [ 5 ] Today, the youth still experiences behavioural problems but to a lesser extent. She is attending school and it is going well. She stills has problems with minimal rules and authority but globally, her situation is improving. [ 6 ] The social report written and filed is more explicit and contains pertinent information as to the situation with her caregiver, the grandmother. The social worker is of the opinion that an extension is necessary for three main motives:

a) the youth has to complete her school year;

b) the grandmother must receive counselling in order to be prepared to receive her granddaughter ;

c) the youth must continue to improve her behaviour that presently does not warrant an immediate reintegration.

[ 7 ] The Court is convinced by the testimony of the social worker that an extension is the most appropriate measure. [ 8 ] The reluctance of the mother more than a true opposition to the recommendation is easily understandable, but not motivated or justified by proven facts. [ 9 ] As for the length suggested for the follow-up, the Court, with the evidence tendered, is convinced that a period of six months following reintegration should be sufficient to achieve a complete stabilization of the situation. [ 10 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 12 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the child in danger; [ 13 ] EXTENDS in the following manner, the decision rendered on July 20, 2009:

a) the foster care of the teenager in a rehabilitation centre, for a period of three (3) months, starting on April 13, 2010;

b) that a person working for an organism or establishment, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the mother, grandmother and the teenager, for a period of six (6) months, following the end of the foster care measure; [ 14 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the foster care measure, if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose, of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Lawyer for the teenager Me Robert-André Adam Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: April 13, 2010