2017 QCCQ 14437, 2017 QCCQ 14437

Protection de la jeunesse — 176215 2017 QCCQ 14437 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000337-102 DATE: June 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2004 Child -and- A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). JA1013 [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 5, 2016, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present but not represented. Although, she wishes to proceed. She admits that the facts alleged in the application represent the actual situation.

Furthermore, she agrees with the measures suggested by the DYP and consents to the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 3 ] The child is absent but duly represented. Counsel for the child also expresses his consent with the facts, the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 4 ] In the last order, the child was entrusted to a foster family but the situation has worsened since then.

On May 3, 2017, a judgment on provisional compulsory foster care was rendered entrusting her to a rehabilitation unit until this hearing. [ 5 ] She ran away and had to be hospitalized after taking too many back pain pills. Considering the situation the current foster family did not have the means to deal with those issues neither have the proper skills to address such problems which could endanger the youth’s life. [ 6 ] The child makes many crisis due to her mood swings and oppositional behaviour. Her conduct can change week to week.

Either she is calm or either disruptive and very impulsive. [ 7 ] The child is 13 years old. She is vulnerable emotionally and she is fragile. The fact that she has been placed in foster care for most of her life can explain part of it. She experience so many fluctuations in her behaviour to a point that she had to be removed from her foster family and be integrated in rehabilitation unit. This change was required because the child showed a lack of boundaries.

In addition, she is unable to follow specific rules and regulations. [ 8 ] After being at the unit for a few weeks, the child still struggling with the rules but it seems going better. She has minimal autonomy and she shows deficiencies on her basic skills. For these reasons, she seeks a lot of attention from her primary worker.

[ 9 ] Recently the child accepted to follow a therapy with a psychologist and go to the appointment. Regarding, his psychiatric evaluation it has been delayed due to unavailability of the professional. Overall her involvement with the services is alright. She makes an effort to participate in the information session and to complete her self-evaluation book. However, a lot of repeating to the child is required during all this process. [ 10 ] Concerning the mother, she collaborates with the DYP. She attends the

schedule meeting with them and with her addiction worker. Even if the mother made some changes in her life it is still not sufficient to demonstrate her parental capacity. It leads to the fact that she cannot assume to take back her child on a permanent basis. [ 11 ] In regards with the contacts between the child and her mother, they had supervised visits but since March 28, 2017, the child refuses to see her mother without any apparent reason. The mother was informed of the child’s decision.

Lately, on May 14th, 2017 the child manifested her desire to have a visit with her. [ 12 ] After assessing the documentary evidence, it reveals that the child still needs a stable and safe environment, and the mother is still not able to provide such a place for her. Furthermore, she really necessitates services in regards of her behavioral problems. In fact, the rehabilitation unit can provide the services to help her deal with her issues. [ 13 ] The proof demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded.

The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a Rehabilitation Center designated by the DYP until May 30, 2018; [ 17 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her mother are determined following agreement between the parties, including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the child submit herself to psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the psychologist; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the child submit herself to psychiatric evaluation; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submit herself to parental capacity assessment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until May 30, 2018; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Cédric Leblanc Falardeau for the child A The mother Date of hearing: June 7, 2017 Written judgment filed on June 22, 2017