2013 QCCQ 19689, 2013 QCCQ 19689

Protection de la jeunesse — 138379 2013 QCCQ 19689 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-024652-117 Date: December 19, 2013 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 1997 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE , Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of December 19, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on September 26, 2012, whereby the now sixteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for revision and extension dated June 25, 2013, are as follows: 3.1. the adolescent remained placed at [Center A] until November 21, 2012; 3.2. while placed at [Center A], the adolescent continued to express suicidal ideation, to cut herself, and to threaten to harm herself and others; 3.3. in November 2012, the adolescent attempted to hang herself on three (3) occasions; 3.4. in November 2012, the adolescent reported to a nurse that she enjoys watching people react to her threats to hurt herself and when she self harms; 3.5. in November 2012, the adolescent […] stopped receiving therapy at the A Hospital;

3.6. the adolescent however, continues to see her psychiatrist and takes her prescribed medication in general; 3.7. during the months of September, October and November, the adolescent was almost never at school; 3.8. at the end of November 2012, the adolescent was transferred to A Unit, where her behaviour stabilized a bit; 3.9. on December 21, 2012, the adolescent was transferred to B Unit as her behaviour was continuing to improve; 3.10. since her transfer to Oasis, the adolescent had visits at both her parents' homes including overnights; 3.11. however, from December 27, 2012 to January 2 , 2013, the adolescent ran away from her mother's home and she admitted that she was with friends drinking alcohol during that time; 3.12. from January 2, 2013 to January 4, 2013, the adolescent had visits at the father's home and it went well; 3.13. in January 2013 and February 2013, the adolescent continued to miss classes at her new school, however, much less than at her previous school; 3.14. on March 16, 2013, the adolescent punched the father in the chest when he went to visit at the rehabilitation centre, as they had an argument […]; 3.15. moreover, the adolescent told her father that she would run away on St-Patrick's day; 3.16. consequently, on March 16, 2013, the adolescent was brought back to [CENTER A]; 3.17. during the night of March 16 to March 17, 2013, the adolescent pulled the fire alarm at [CENTER A] and swallowed a piece of metal; 3.18. the adolescent was brought to the hospital during the night of March 16, 2013 to March 17, 2013; 3.19. the adolescent was discharged from the Hospital on March 18, 2013 but was brought back to the Hospital, where she stayed until April 4, 2013, as she continued to swallow objects at [CENTER A]; 3.20. in May 2013, as the adolescent's behaviour stabilized, a gradual reintegration at the mother's home began; 3.21. however, on May 23, 2013, the adolescent punched the mother in the face and consequently, she was sent back to B group home; 3.22.

As the parents proposed that the adolescent be reintegrated to the father given that he is more able to manage the adolescent's behaviour than the mother, a reintegration at the father's home began and the adolescent was fully integrated to the father's care on May 29, 2013; 3.23. on June 11, 2013, however, the adolescent ran away from the father's home as she had a disagreement with him the previous day about the adult man she hung out with and she returned by herself to Oasis; 3.24. the adolescent refuses to go back to the father's home; 3.25. moreover, the adolescent stated all kinds of things about the father and explained later that it was to get back at him; 3.26. the parents want the adolescent to be reintegrated to the father's care; 3.27. the adolescent needs the structure of a rehabilitation centre at this point in time (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until the adolescent's age of majority, on [...], 2015. [ 5 ] The parents, who both chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Cloutier, also admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-2 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [social worker 1], dated August 7, 2013; D-2: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated December 12, 2013. [ 8 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 9 ] Moreover, since the filing of the motion, the adolescent continued to exhibit increasingly disturbing self-harming behavior including drinking polish remover, strangling herself with clothing, running away, swallowing a piece of her bra wire, cutting herself with the broken pieces of a ceramic mug, and swallowing broken glass, batteries, and de-icing salt. [ 10 ] She refused to undergo a planned assessment at A Institute. [ 11 ] Throughout, the parents remain steadfast in their commitment to their daughter.

[ 12 ] As summarized in the Court Report: X's safety continues to be at risk given the high instability of her situation and self-harming. X has participated in individual Art Therapy on a weekly basis when her situation permits. She will continue to require services in the long-term. She is generally not engaging in the social follow-up with the undersigned and her collaboration with unit staff is variable. It is considered that X will continue to require services in the long-term. While she states that she wishes to eventually reintegrate home, her situation is far form permitting such.

It is unknown if the new charges concerning the attacks on A campus personnel may lead to additional time in custody.

Given that the family continues to present (sic) committed to work towards the reintegration of X and that X has stated to engage in therapy, a one year extension of RC placement instead of extending the placement until her age of majority is recommended among other measures. [1] [ 13 ] Regarding the services that may be offered to the family, the following is recommended: The recommendation from the therapist was that the best way to go about accessing services for the family would be individual therapy for X and a parenting group for the parents.

It was considered that having a joint therapy right away would not be successful and may be counterproductive becoming very conflictual and ending promptly.

After each party has engaged in their own processes, the possibility of joint family therapy can be looked into. [2] [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the adolescent's interest. [ 15 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent inform her parents of her whereabouts at all times when in their care; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a daily basis, unless excused by a medical note, or be involved in a work or therapeutic program; [ 21 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent follow the recommendations of her treating professionals; [ 22 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue to benefit from psychotherapy; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents follow all recommendations regarding their own participation in therapeutic counselling; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share relevant information with professionals involved with the family TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the family's consent; [ 25 ] PROHIBITS C from having any contact with X and PROHIBITS X from having any contact with this individual; [ 26 ] PROHIBITS X from having any contact with D; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for A Youth and Family Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE until the adolescent reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2015.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Davis / AN4187 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Francis Cloutier / AU1523 Attorney for the adolescent TD/vl