2013 QCCQ 7934, 2013 QCCQ 7934

Protection de la jeunesse — 131368 2013 QCCQ 7934 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001192-092 DATE: February 7, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS J.C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A Applicant and X, born on […], 1999 Adolescent and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant submitted an application for the review of the decision rendered by Daniel Bédard J. of this Court on May 1, 2012, maintaining the status of endangerment for the adolescent X. [ 2 ] The adolescent was present at the hearing and represented by an attorney, as was his mother. [ 3 ] His father was absent, having given no response of any kind to the service by newspaper, which was authorized because, according to the most recent information available, he has been of no fixed abode in the Town A area since his release from prison in April 2012. [ 4 ] It should be remembered that the judicial history in the case shows that a first order was rendered on May 13, 2009 by Jacques Roy J. of this Court, ordering X's placement in a foster family for one year. [ 5 ] The grounds invoked for imposing that measure stemmed from the parents' use of alcohol and drugs, in addition to the fact that they regularly found themselves in court having to answer for their acts. [ 6 ] That first decision was reviewed on April 7 the following year and, the situation having remained the same, similar measures were ordered at that time. [ 7 ] On April 19, 2011, Lise Gagnon J. of this Court, noting no change in the parents' situation, ordered X's placement in a foster family until he reached full age.

[ 8 ] Called on to review that decision on December 2, 2011, I ordered that the youth be placed in a rehabilitation centre for a maximum period of six months, with a gradual return to his foster family, if the situation allowed. [ 9 ] On June 5, 2012, Daniel Bédard J. of this Court, in another review of the matter, maintained the placement in a rehabilitation centre for a six-month period beginning on May 1, 2012 and ordered a return to the foster family as of November 1, 2012. [ 10 ] On October 30, 2012, Nancy McKenna J. of this Court issued a provisional order maintaining the placement in a rehabilitation centre and requiring a psychological assessment, with a report to be filed at the hearing set for January 8, 2013. [ 11 ] Given that psychologist Joe Beltempo encountered certain problems trying to meet with X, his report could not be filed in time for the hearing.

However, the psychologist sent Mtre. Alexandre Legault his main observations and recommendations, which were incorporated into the update filed by Mtre.

Legault. [ 12 ] From the evidence, the documents contained in the record and the admissions, the Court notes essentially the following. [ 13 ] As mentioned earlier, following his release from prison in spring 2012, the father chose to remain in Town A and has no fixed abode at this time. [ 14 ] The mother is an inmate at Town B prison and said she agrees with the measures proposed by the caseworker. [ 15 ] As for X, the Court notes that the behaviour that led to his placement in a rehabilitation centre has continued, and even worsened, so that there can be no question of his returning to his foster family in the near future. [ 16 ] Accordingly, the applicant's suggestion should be confirmed, and the placement in a rehabilitation centre should be maintained for the coming months. [ 17 ] However, if we are to hope for improvement in the situation, more effective interventions are required with this youth, such as those recommended by Dr.

Beltempo. [ 18 ] As reported by Mtre. Legault, Dr. Beltempo issued primarily three recommendations, summarized as follows. [ 19 ] First, he feels that X needs to develop in a structured environment. [ 20 ] Secondly, he recommends the use of special educational methods to help X learn. [ 21 ] Finally, he recommends that X visit his home community more often, with the aim of instilling in him a wish to improve his situation. [ 22 ] It is clear that, given the youth’s specific needs, it is important to implement these recommendations as soon as possible. [ 23 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1999, are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS X's placement in a rehabilitation centre for a period of eight months starting on January 8, 2013; [ 27 ] ORDERS that Dr.

Beltempo's psychological report be filed in the Court record and that a copy be sent to the parties; [ 28 ] ORDERS a psychological follow-up of X; [ 29 ] ORDERS that, at the end of the placement, X be returned to his foster family, if the situation allows; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the exercise of the parents' visitation rights be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to conditions, frequency and duration; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that visits between siblings be encouraged in keeping with their best interest; [ 32 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the youth and his parents; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; [ 34 ] ORDERS the execution of this order by any peace officer, if necessary.

JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS J.C.Q. Mtre. Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the adolescent Mtre. Sarah Plamondon Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: January 8, 2013