2012 QCCQ 18379, 2012 QCCQ 18379

Protection de la jeunesse — 127678 2012 QCCQ 18379 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004307-123 DATE: September 14, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 1995 Adolescent DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the adolescent X, born on […], 1995. [ 2 ] The motion alleges that the security and the development of the adolescent are compromised in reason of serious educational neglect and serious behavioural difficulties (oppositional difficulties, drug consumption). [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for 6 months, with other measures of aid and support for 1 year. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in the absence of the parents, duly served of the proceedings and advised of the date of hearing.

The admissions of the adolescent are noted in the record. He is in agreement with the measures proposed. [ 5 ] The adolescent resides with his mother, stepfather and two siblings. His father has no involvement in his life since infancy. [ 6 ] The family's struggles with the adolescent's drug consumption nourish a cycle of oppositional behaviours and conflict. The adolescent defies attempts to address his consumption. [ 7 ] In 2011, voluntary measures place the adolescent in a group home setting for seven months.

A few months after his reintegration home, there is a resurgence of his drug consumption and the oppositional behaviours, which result in his expulsion in May. The mother considers this action as an ultimate attempt to force compliance from her son. [ 8 ] The adolescent is on his own for a few weeks and accelerates his consumption. After being found unconscious in front of his home, a placement in a group home is agreed upon. [ 9 ] On June 18, 2012, the parties sign voluntary measures entrusting the adolescent to a rehabilitation center for one year.

In the group home setting, he is found with drugs in his possession and is regularly under their influence. He runs away from July 5 th to August 9 th , which results in his placement in a more secure setting. [ 10 ] The Court concludes that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of educational neglect.

Although the mother's intentions are not in question, by expulsing her son from home, she fails to meet her parental obligations of surveillance and of ensuring that his basic needs are met. [ 11 ] The Court also concludes to a situation of serious behavioural difficulties as a result of his drug consumption and defiance of parental authority. [ 12 ] The mother supports her son and collaborates with the intervention.

She wants her son to return to his home environment, but maintains that he must conditionally deal successfully with the various issues, which presently impede his development and are the source of family dispute. [ 13 ] Although the adolescent is progressing positively in the structured environment of the rehabilitation center, he continues to minimize his drug consumption and deflects responsibility for his actions.

He admits needing to work on controlling his anger and emotions. [ 14 ] The failure of the past measures, demonstrate that the adolescent's drug consumption is a main source of his difficulties and consequently, the degree of such requires evaluation and follow-up.

In default of the adolescent determinately moving forward on this issue, the Court considers that he remains fragile to resuming his abusive consumption in a less restrictive environment. [ 15 ] In view of the past experience, it is necessary to consider a substantial period of placement in order to achieve clear accountability and therefore more amply assure that any progress is the result of integrated change, and not conformism. [ 16 ] The Court concurs with the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, which represent the best interests of the adolescent. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center for 6 months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and his mother be according to an agreement between the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his mother take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent participate in a follow-up regarding his drug issues; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescent and his

parents for one year; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: September 14, 2012