2015 QCCQ 9429, 2015 QCCQ 9429

Protection de la jeunesse — 151078 2015 QCCQ 9429 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029196-144 DATE: January 8 th , 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on: […], 1999 The Director of Youth Protection A applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the adolescent be declared to be in danger. The Director alleges that X has serious behavioural problems which include, alcohol and drug use, self-mutilation, suicidal thoughts and attempts, running away, risky sexual practices and school absences. [ 2 ] As explained later, X is currently entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

Today, the Director recommends that X remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for six months with social follow-up and various other support measures for one year. [ 3 ] The mother and X are both present. [ 4 ] The father is absent. He has not been involved almost since birth and his whereabouts are unknown. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] X and her mother essentially agree with the allegations of the motion.

[ 6 ] The mother is in agreement with the measures proposed although she questions whether six months of placement will be sufficient for X to return to her care. [ 7 ] X is asking to be entrusted to her maternal grandfather. [ 8 ] Thus, today, the main issue is therefore whether or not X can be entrusted to her grandfather. [ 9 ] The facts establish that X was raised by her mother. [ 10 ] X has been presenting somewhat challenging and increasingly worrisome behaviours since birth, behaviours for which she has received various diagnoses over the years: Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and pervasive development disorder, not otherwise specified (PDD NOS).

Of note, the first of these two diagnoses was made in 2007 and the POD diagnosis was made by a psychologist in 2010. It would appear that X has not been formally re-evaluated by a psychiatrist in over seven years. [ 11 ] There have also been difficulties in the mother-daughter relationship, with X often complaining over the years that she does not feel loved. [ 12 ] A November 2007 psychological evaluation of X led to the following conclusion : It is our impression that X’s difficulties are twofold. First, as documented in previous evaluations, she has ADHD and ODD.

Second, the mother-daughter dyad appears insecurely attached (avoidant type). It is possible that Ms. A was not in the ideal conditions when she became a mother (several stressors). In addition, X’s challenging behaviour and emotional states most likely did not facilitate the development of a harmonious, secure attachment bond. Furthermore, since she did not seem to experience a good bond with her own mother, Ms.

A could not rely on that model to develop her own parenting style, and probably had to be very creative in learning to become a mother herself. (D-5, page 2) [ 13 ] Due to these diagnosed difficulties and mother-daughter problems, X was placed in a [centre A] for over one year, from December 2012 to January 2014 at which point she returned to her mother’s care as her behaviour had improved significantly.

However, with few supports in place over the next few months, difficulties resurfaced, both in terms of X’s behaviour problems (drugs, curfew, skipping class, self-mutilation, suicidal thoughts or gestures) and in terms of conflicts with her mother. [ 14 ] The situation came to a head when the two had a physical altercation in late November 2014 leading to X running away for two days before being entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

The grandfather was instrumental in having X turn herself in. [ 15 ] X is back in a [centre A] resource since around December 9, 2014. [ 16 ] X is doing relatively well even though she would prefer to be elsewhere, preferably with her grandfather. [ 17 ] X recognizes that she has issues to work on and has indicated that she would like to return to her mother’s care.

However, the mother feels unable to handle her daughter’s behaviour and that her daughter needs the structure and supervision provided by a rehabilitation centre. [ 18 ] X’s grandfather testified and informed the Court that he is willing and available to receive his grand-daughter. He is somewhat critical of how the mother has raised her daughter and feels that most of X’s behaviour problems are related to mother-daughter conflicts. He has regularly cared for X over the years, up to a one month period, and has had occasional difficulties with her behaviour, some of these difficulties being quite serious.

Nonetheless, he is open to receiving X and believes that, although it may not be perfect, X would behave appropriately in his care. He agrees to work collaboratively with the Director and other service-providers. [ 19 ] It is clear that the grandfather genuinely cares for X and would do his best to provide her with an appropriate home.

It is also clear that the mother opposes X being entrusted to his care because, in her view, he has not and would not be able to properly deal with her behaviour problems. [ 20 ] Whether or not the grandfather could provide X with sufficient structure and supervision would remain to be seen. [ 21 ] However, in the Court’s view, X’s present behaviour problems extend beyond what a regular caregiver would be able to provide. The Court is particularly concerned with X’s emotional state, her suicidal thoughts and gestures and her tendency to run and place herself at risk.

Although X is able to follow most of the rules most of the time, the nature of her occasional misbehaviours is of grave concern. [ 22 ] For these reasons, the Court feels that X currently needs to stay in placement where professional services are available. [ 23 ] In order to leave placement, X needs to prove that she can follow basic rules and not put herself at risk. [ 24 ] The various measures proposed by the Director (including family counselling and a parenting-skills program for the mother) will hopefully allow X to return to her mother’s care over the next six months.

However, based on the history and the current level of conflict, this may not be possible. [ 25 ] The Court believes that X should undergo a psychiatric assessment to update her current state and needs. [ 26 ] Given that X is only fifteen years old and has already been placed for over one year, other options will need to be looked at if a return to her mother is not possible and if her behaviour allows it. These options could certainly include her being entrusted to her grandfather. This would require that he be more formally assessed. CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X is in danger due to her behavioural problems; [ 29 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 30 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six (6) months; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the adolescent’s reintegration at the mother’s home as soon as the situation allows; [ 32 ] ORDERS the Director to determine the frequency and modality of contact between X and her grandfather, Mr.

C, and ENCOURAGES said contacts; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS , should continued placement be required, the Director to conduct a full assessment of the grandfather’s milieu; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the adolescent undergo a psychiatric assessment; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that X continue her therapeutic services with the psychologist and educator from [centre A] and for the family to follow the recommendations of the professionals; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS the mother and X to receive family counselling; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to access services to develop specific parenting skills; [ 38 ] ORDERS X to inform her mother of her whereabouts and to respect house rules; [ 39 ] ORDERS X to attend school on a daily basis unless medically justified; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the Director be authorized to exchange information with any treating professionals or support services; [ 41 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family for a period of one year; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

M e Heidi Lechter Attorney for the applicant M e Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the adolescent Judgment rendered verbally on January 8 th , 2015 CL/nl