2012 QCCQ 11353, 2012 QCCQ 11353

Protection de la jeunesse — 123757 2012 QCCQ 11353 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004098-110 DATE: May 23, 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 of the adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for revision and extension of a decision rendered on December 20, 2011, concerning X.

Said judgment provides more particularly that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation center for 4 months, with aid, counselling and

assistance to her and her family for 9 months. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the adolescent justifies the revision of the last order and the continuation of her placement until August 24, 2012, with other measures of aid and support until February 24, 2013. [ 3 ] The Petitioner produces the report on the analysis of the adolescent's social situation as evidence by consent, in lieu of the testimony of its author. [ 4 ] The father, although duly served of the proceedings, is absent, and following the evidence provided as to his position, the Court proceeds in his absence.

The admissions of the parties are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 5 ] The measures put in place since the judgment permit the tangible progress of the adolescent's situation. The structure and rules of the rehabilitation center are generally respected, although passive opposition is frequently noted as to the application of consequences. [ 6 ] Significant difficulties are noted in the school setting at the onset of the winter semester, with X not completing work, being disrespectful and making inappropriate comments about drug use.

Recently, she offers efforts to improve her academic results and behaviours. [ 7 ] The adolescent's drug consumption is an ongoing issue. In February, March and April, random drug tests reveal continued consumption of chemical drugs and cannabis.

Since April 29 th , the tests are negative and X is participating in a drug rehabilitation program with the Pavillon A. [ 8 ] The weekend visits with her parents are also generally positive, with X spending most of her time at her mother's home and occasional Sundays with her father. [ 9 ] The mother is making significant efforts to collaborate with the intervention and is increasingly receptive as to the services recommended. She follows through on sessions with a psychologist, a parenting group through the CLSC, and participates in her daughter's rehabilitation program with [pavillon A].

She is now more able to recognize and understand the importance of the difficulties having justified the intervention of the Director. The intervention focuses on preparations for the reintegration of X and means of confronting difficulties in the home setting. [ 10 ] The father adopts a more passive position as to the intervention, remaining reserved until he can be convinced of the effective changes of his daughter's behaviours.

For the moment, he maintains contacts with X, but refuses to reintegrate her in his family home. [ 11 ] The variance as to the parent's respective views and implication is a continued source of tension and conflict, with which the adolescent must invariably compose. The parents are presently unable to effectively communicate together, which impede their ability to develop and maintain the consistent structure X requires. [ 12 ] In

summary, although the progress is sure, it has held a slower pace than anticipated, justifying that the status quo be maintained in order to further assure the long-term success of an eventual reintegration of the adolescent in her family environment. [ 13 ] The parties agree that it is necessary to revise and prolong the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection and the continuation of services to address the ongoing issues, which still affect the security and the development of the adolescent. [ 14 ] As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights, as well as the best interests, of the adolescent. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X are still in danger; [ 18 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the decision rendered on December 20, 2011; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center until August 24, 2012; [ 20 ] TAKES ACT that the parties will proceed with a progressive reintegration of the adolescent in her maternal environment, should the situation permit; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development is compromised; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her parents until February 24, 2013; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be upon an agreement between the parties; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue the follow-ups undertaken to improve their parental capacities; [ 25 ] TAKES ACT of the adolescent's consent to submit herself to random drug testing; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Youth Protection Director of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures.

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: May 23, 2012