2012 QCCQ 17400, 2012 QCCQ 17400

Protection de la jeunesse — 126762 2012 QCCQ 17400 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-025803-123 DATE: November 22, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1997 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 22, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the adolescent declared compromised under

section 38 b) 1) iii) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act, as the adolescent demonstrates serious behavioural disturbances and that her parents fail to provide her with the appropriate supervision or support. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The mother has custody of the adolescent while the father has visitation rights; • The adolescent was known to the Director of Youth Protection as well as to the Court of Quebec, Youth Division until June 2009 under the Court order for issues pertaining to the parents’ volatile relationship; • The adolescent has serious behavioural disturbances and objects to steps taken by the parents to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . the adolescent consumes marijuana regularly; . the parents have reported that the adolescent is experimenting with cocaine and ecstasy; . the adolescent’s whereabouts are often unknown; . the adolescent leaves the home without permission to attend after hours parties (raves); . the adolescent does not follow the structure and rules imposed by either parent;

. the adolescent is verbally aggressive towards the mother; . the adolescent has a conflictual relationship with her parents; . the adolescent is repeatedly suspended from school due to her behaviour and truancy; . the adolescent had a 22 year old boyfriend; . since January 2012, the mother sought assistance from the CLSC to correct the situation, however the adolescent refused to follow through with their services; . on March 19, 2012, the adolescent began participating in the A program; . on March 20, 2012, the adolescent threatened to kill herself and was transported to the Hospital A where she was later discharged; . on March 21, 2012, the adolescent again threatened to kill herself and was transported to the Hospital A where she was assessed by a psychiatrist; . on that date, the adolescent was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder and was discharged; . from March 21, 2012, to March 25, 2012, the adolescent went to live with the father; . given the adolescent’s continued behavioural difficulties at the father’s home, the adolescent returned to the mother’s care; . the adolescent’s behaviours remain difficult and challenging; • The parents are overwhelmed with the adolescent’s behaviour and request her placement; • On April 19, 2012, immediate protection measures were invoked and the adolescent was placed in a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] On April 23, 2012, the Court entrusted the adolescent to her mother’s care, taking judicial notice that the adolescent consented not to consume any illegal drugs and to undergo a substance abuse assessment. [ 5 ] On May 29, 2012, the Court declared compromised the security and development of the adolescent and ordered that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until the next court date, recommending strongly that the adolescent enter a residential treatment program at center A as recommended in the substance abuse assessment. [ 6 ] The adolescent did enter the program A on May 30, 2012, and began the treatment program immediately.

At the hearing of September 14, 2012, with the consent of all parties, the Court postponed the case to November 22, 2012, and maintained the existing measures. [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one month, with integration to her mother’s care when the situation allows and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 8 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agree with the recommended measures. The parents are both receiving counselling.

The parents are collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection and consent to participate in the B Program. [ 9 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and gives her consent to the recommended measures. X states that she intends to complete the A program and accepts to participate in the B Program. X says she also agrees to undergo random drug testing. [ 10 ] The psychiatric evaluation of the adolescent was done by Dr Ginette Lavoie in July 2012.

The psychiatrist concludes that the adolescent suffers from anxiety and that her personal difficulties are a reaction to the family's instability and opposition between the parents. Furthermore, that her drug consumption interferes with her social life. [ 11 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. C, youth delegate, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that the adolescent has made great progress since integrating the Program. She has developed new friendships, has learned the basic therapeutic concepts and is working on relapse prevention.

She is looking forward to being reintegrated to her mother’s care and to pursue her studies. [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one month and to be integrated to her mother’s care once she has completed the A program and on the condition that her mother continues her counselling. The family needs to participate actively in the B Program in order to support X and to prevent relapses.

The parents will also need to address their relationship in the interest of their daughter. [ 13 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are compromised. [ 14 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one month with integration to her mother’s care once she has completed the A Program and on the condition that the mother is still attending counselling;

[ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts between the adolescent and her father be encouraged; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the family has been accepted into the B Program; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the family collaborate and follow the recommendations of the program, including the need for respite, if the situation is deemed necessary; [ 19 ] ORDERS the adolescent to submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent accepts to submit to random drug testing; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue to receive counselling services; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents continue to follow the recommendations of their Parental Capacity Assessments; [ 22 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorised to obtain and share information with all professionals working with the family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family for a period of one year; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on December 4, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Anne-Marie Dodds Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Francis Cloutier Counsel for the adolescent Me Beryl Baron Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: May 29, September 14, November 22, 2012