2016 QCCQ 11611, 2016 QCCQ 11611

Protection de la jeunesse — 165043 2016 QCCQ 11611 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000079-162 DATE: August 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Health and Social Services A, working in Town A, A district (Quebec) […] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled in Town A, A district (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town B, (Ontario) Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] The applicant asks the Court to review a decision rendered on March 23, 2016. On that date the Court declared the security or development of the youth in danger according to the Youth Protection Act .

As one of the applicable measures the Court entrusted the youth to her maternal grandmother. [ 2 ] The applicant asks the Court to review its decision because the youth displays serious behavioural disturbances and because of them the maternal grandmother does not want her to remain in her care. The applicant asks the Court as one of the measures, to entrust the youth in a rehabilitation center for a period of 12 months with a possible reintegration to the care of one of the parents if the situation allows it. [ 3 ] The mother and the youth are present and represented.

They both challenge the motion as for the applicable measures. The youth asks the Court to entrust her to her mother and the mother wishes to have the youth under her care. [ 4 ] The father is absent. He has received the legal documents by email and was aware about the date of this Court hearing. According to the Youth Protection worker’s testimony he has decided to go working instead of attending Court.

The facts [ 5 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 6 ] Since the youth was born the Director of Youth Protection is involved in that family. [ 7 ] On March 23, 2016, the Court declares the security or development of the youth in danger according to the Youth Protection Act . On that date the youth asked the Court to live with her grandmother. At that time the mother had her own personal issues fighting her alcohol abuse. She still needed to be involved in a treatment program.

Despite the fact she had demonstrated serious behavioural difficulties the youth was entrusted to her maternal grandmother. [ 8 ] One month and a half after the youth was displaying again behavioural disturbances. The youth did not respect the house rules, curfews and adult’s authority. She did not attend school regularly. [ 9 ] For instance, on May 11, the youth did not respect the curfew and did not come back to her grandmother’s house until late afternoon of May 12, 2016.

According to the mother the youth ran away because she was being yelled at by her grandmother. [ 10 ] Given the difficulties with the youth’s behaviours the maternal grandmother did not want her to remain in her care. [ 11 ] On May 13, 2016, immediate protective measures were taken and the youth was placed in a Group Home. Between May 22 and June 27, 2016, the youth ran away six times (June 7, she was high on drugs); was caught stealing twice and uttered threats to a worker in the Group Home.

[ 12 ] The youth was placed in Town C and arrived in Town A yesterday. Yesterday night the youth left the foster home’s house where she was staying in the middle of the night. According to the youth she went to a friend’s place. Today she came to the Courthouse by herself. [ 13 ] Since the last Court hearing the mother has improved her situation a lot. On June 30, 2016, she finished a six weeks treatment program for cocaine abuse. She is very motivated to maintain her sobriety. [ 14 ] The mother lives with a man who has a drug abuse problem.

He is not involved in any treatment or therapy. [ 15 ] The father is not involved in the youth’s life. Analysis and decision [ 16 ] The youth asks the Court to entrust her to her mother. The mother agrees with that. [ 17 ] The evidence reveals that the youth does not function well in an « open environment ». During fall 2015, the youth was entrusted to her mother’s care. She was taking drugs on some occasions and was sniffing gas once. It was not even better at her maternal grandmother’s house. [ 18 ] On May 13, 2016, the youth was placed in a Group Home.

The evidence reveals that even if it is a more secure place the youth’s behaviour did not improve. The youth admitted that she shared vodka with four clients of the Group Home. She admitted stealing money and smoking weed. She admitted that she ran away without shoes more than one time. She told the Court that she was not interested in any treatment because she had no addiction. [ 19 ] Until recently the youth demonstrated again to the Court that she cannot follow rules as she ran away the night prior to this hearing. [ 20 ] The youth displays very serious behaviour disturbances.

She needs to work on her problems and learn how to express herself beside using drugs and alcohol. She needs as well to attend school and to succeed in some area of her life. This has to be done in an environment like a rehabilitation center which provides guidance and control. [ 21 ] As for the mother she is on the right path. Her situation is still fragile as she needs to maintain her sobriety in order to have her daughter back with her.

However time will tell. [ 22 ] Both daughter and mother need time and stability to improve their situations. [ 23 ] The Court concludes that the evidence is preponderant that the security or development of the youth is still in danger. The Court concludes as well that a placement of the youth in a rehabilitation center for nine months is the most suitable measure. The Court orders as well other measures for a period of twelve months. [ 24 ] The mother consents to pass a drug test one week prior to her contact with the youth. She understands that the result must be negative.

She consents as well to be involved in different follow-ups in order to remain sober. According to her, her boyfriend wishes to follow a treatment for his drug addiction.

For these reasons the Court: [ 25 ] Grants partly the motion; [ 26 ] maintains that the security or development of X, born on […], 2001, is still compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; [ 27 ] reviews the decision rendered on March 23, 2016; [ 28 ] entrusts the youth to a rehabilitation center for a period of nine months with a possible reintegration to the care of her mother if the situation allows it; [ 29 ] orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 30 ] orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 31 ] orders to the youth to go to school on a regular basis; [ 32 ] orders that the youth receive all the services (social, medical and psychological) that her situation requires; [ 33 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother’s consent and orders the mother to pass a drugs test one week prior to her contact with her daughter.

The result have to be negative; [ 34 ] orders that the contacts between the youth and her mother occur minimally one week-end per month but could increase if the situation allows it and those contacts will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities; [ 35 ] orders that the contacts between the youth and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and length; [ 36 ] orders that the Director of Youth Protection favour the contacts between the youth and her sibling; [ 37 ] orders the parents to be sober in the presence of the youth;

[ 38 ] orders the parents to ensure that the youth is not put in contact with people under influence of alcohol when the youth is under their care; [ 39 ] orders the mother to continue her follow-up with the NNADAP worker; [ 40 ] orders the mother to go to AA and NA; [ 41 ] Orders the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 42 ] entrusts the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C.

Me Camille Champeval, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Constantin Kiryakidis, attorney for the youth Me Michel Grenier, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: July 7, 2016