2012 QCCQ 18105, 2012 QCCQ 18105

Protection de la jeunesse — 127439 2012 QCCQ 18105 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004051-119 DATE: September 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...], 1997 Adolescent THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B 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 revision of the Court decision rendered on March 9, 2012 concerning the adolescent X, born on [...], 1997. [ 2 ] The previous Court order entrusts the adolescent to her mother, with various measures of aid and support for a period of 6 months. [ 3 ] The present motion alleges that the adolescent continues in her destructive behaviours (drug consumption, violence, delinquency) and fails to follow through on the measures applied to correct the situation.

The mother is overwhelmed anew by the continued degeneration of the situation, the whole justifying that the Court consider a placement in the more structured environment of a rehabilitation center for an additional 6 months, including her integration in a drug therapy program at [center A]. [ 4 ] The Petitioner produces as evidence, the reports on the analysis of the adolescent's social situation.

The parties present offer their admissions for the Court record and indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 5 ] Almost at the onset of the adolescent's return home in March, there is the regeneration of the chaotic situation which initially justifies the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection. Her drug consumption renews, accompanied by physical and verbal aggression and delinquent behaviours. She openly rejects authority and rules.

The relationship with her mother revolves around crisis and opposition. [ 6 ] The adolescent refuses to comply with the various measures put in place to correct the situation, namely a follow-up with B and a psychologist. She skips school and refuses to take her medication. The mother is unable to confront the situation. [ 7 ] On July 18 th , the adolescent integrates a 6-month in-patient program at a drug therapy program at [center A]. Her participation is excellent and her progression positive. She asks that the Court not order her to complete the program, preferring to remain of her own volition.

She intends to complete the program. [ 8 ] It is crucial to the adolescent's continued security and development that she no longer suffers periods of distress nor put herself in situations of danger. In the structured environment of a rehabilitation center, this objective is realized. [ 9 ] Since the onset of the adolescent's problematic behaviours and the consequent interventions, a pattern emerges. In the family environment, a steady decline leads to a crisis period followed by a provisional period of placement for the adolescent.

She responds and collaborates positively and there is a return in the home, with a clear, and agreed upon, plan for maintenance. She resists the measures and her mother becomes overwhelmed. The Court notes that this is the third such cycle since 2011, with little progression. [ 10 ] The previous measures of placement are not sufficient to fully address the complexity of issues leading to the dysfunction of the family dynamic.

Concurrently, the adolescent is adept at making efforts and promises which permit her short-term goals, but for which the sincerity is easily challenged once these goals are realized. [ 11 ] The adolescent and her mother expect that the drug therapy program at [center A] will be the catalyst necessary to operate real change and justify a return home. [ 12 ] Although the intervention's goal is a return of the adolescent in her home environment, such a return can no longer be based on promises and expectations, but on the voluntary adherence and compliance to the measures. [ 13 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 16 ] REVISES the decision rendered on March 9, 2012; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 18 ] TAKES ACT that the adolescent has integrated a drug therapy program at [center A] and consents to pursue and terminate the program; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her parents; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures design to put an end to the situation; [ 21 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Ms. Stéphanie Chayer Testa Articling student for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: September 5, 2012