2015 QCCQ 16531, 2015 QCCQ 16531

Protection de la jeunesse — 159076 2015 QCCQ 16531 JR 1585 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-007539-143 DATE : March 12, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: JUSTICE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of le Centre jeunesse A Petitioner -and- X, born on [...], 1998 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The child is 16 years old.

She was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until August 21 st , 2014 to then reintegrate her mother’s home according to the last Court order rendered on February 21 st , 2014. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with a Motion for Revision and Extension of a Court order according to the Youth Protection Act. [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the child be entrusted to her mother with a social follow-up for 6 months. [ 4 ] The child and her parents are present. They are in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director .

[ 5 ] The proof demonstrates that all through her placement, the child benefits from health services in psychiatry, namely psychological counselling and medication. [ 6 ] The relationship with the father resumes gradually as he visits her and participates in the social follow-up. [ 7 ] On July 10 th , 2014, the Director meets with all the parties to discuss of the orientation of the case. They all agree that the child should reintegrate the mother’s home.

The father is ready for a co-parenting responsibility towards his daughter and invites her on a trip during the summer vacation. [ 8 ] However, the trip does not turn out well and ends with a physical altercation between the two at the end of which the father calls the police to bring back the child to the rehabilitation centre. [ 9 ] Since then, there is no contact between them and the father prefers to stay away from the whole situation. He explains being very emotional and asks that all the communications with the Director be in writing.

Both parties have hurt feelings in this situation. [ 10 ] The child reintegrates her mother’s home during the month of August 2014. Since she is back, she has managed to properly resume her schooling, has maintained a part time job has generally adjusted to the house rules and made positive choices regarding her friends and activities. [ 11 ] At the end of October 2014, the child encounters some serious difficulties.

She isolates herself, uses drugs, stops her medication, cuts herself and her eating disorder resurfaces. [ 12 ] The Director, with the help of the collaborators, puts in place intensive follow-up measures in order to ensure a safety net for the child. [ 13 ] At that time, the child cooperates actively to the counselling provided to her on a regular basis, in particularly by the social worker, Mr [Social Worker 2] and a drug counsellor, Mrs [Social Worker 3]. [ 14 ] The child continues to receive medical support by a psychiatrist. However, the appointments are not regularly scheduled and happen whenever needed.

The child explains that her medication still needs readjusting since it’s not optimal. [ 15 ] Although her situation has improved lately, the child admits to have fragilities that could become damaging and states that she wishes to continue receive support. [ 16 ] The Director explains that she expects to hear more from the mother on the evolution of the situation. [ 17 ] She recently changed school and now attends an adult education program. Because of this change, she needs to reactivate her follow-up with Mr. [Social Worker 2], but she is willing to do so. [ 18 ] The father testifies.

He explains that he thinks that his daughter’s situation is very fragile and that she could benefit from more intensive services. He has chosen to step back from her life as he does not wish to be a part of the situation as it stands. [ 19 ] The child’s situation commands that she remain with her mother. However, the situation is very fragile and she needs to continue to receive the services that are available to her. [ 20 ] The mother has to be proactive in the social follow-up and inform the Director of any changes in the situation.

The Director must also ensure that she actively provide aid, counsel and assistance. [ 21 ] The father must remain involved in his daughter’s life, even if it’s difficult. The child needs both of her parents.

Time apart can be a good solution but it can not be permanent in the best interest of the child. [ 22 ] After having received the admissions, taken into account the entire proof and the interest of the child, the Court comes to the conclusion that the security and development of the child are still compromised in virtue of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Youth Protection Act and therefore orders the application of the requested measures.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 21 st , 2014; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother and that the mother reports periodically to the Director; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution of body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family, for a period of six months ; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents take an active

part in the measures ordered, mainly, that they follow the recommendations; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child receive certain health care and health services, mainly a psychiatric follow up; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue her follow up with Mrs [Social Worker 3] , the drug counsellor and with Mr [Social Worker 2] from the CLSC; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the

present order. ________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Lyonnais Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Jean-Pierre Gaudreau Attorney for the child