r v. A, 2014 QCCQ 17981

Protection de la jeunesse — 145889 2014 QCCQ 17981 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004564-137 DATE: August 4, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 1998 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON APPLICABLE MEASURES ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered on December 10, 2013 concerning X, born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] On April 23, 2014, after considering the evidence submitted, the Court grants the motion and declares that the security and the development of the adolescent remain in danger, and suspends the decision on the final protective measures.

In the interim, the Court returns the adolescent to her mother's care, with various measures and services to support the reintegration. [ 3 ] At the final hearing on the measures, the Director recommends that the Court maintain the status quo for three months, a period destined to secure services in place for the family in view of the end of their implication. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in the absence of the father, who, duly aware of the proceedings, notifies his absence and consent by way of the caseworker.

The mother agrees with the measures sought, but asks that the Court pursue their application of for one year, or at least six months. The adolescent also agrees with the measures, leaving the duration to the discretion of the Court. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] During the interim measures, the adolescent remains in her maternal environment. [ 7 ] The family's collaboration with the intervention wanes, presumably due to a fear of X returning to placement.

The Director's services are sought mostly in times of increased tension, which continue to occur on a regular basis. [ 8 ] The family dynamic remains, at times, volatile. X is used to having her way and she can react with resistance and outright opposition to her mother's attempts to apply rules and consequences. The mother sometimes resorts to threats of placement to force her daughter to conform to the rules. Albeit, in the last months, communication is more open and positive between X and her mother, even within omnipresent conflicts. [ 9 ] X demonstrates significant improvement in her behaviours.

She is able to make good choices in regards to her social circle and continue towards pro-social goals. She reduces her drug use and is more consistent in following the rules. Anger management remains an issue, but progress is also seen on this front. [ 10 ] It is without a doubt that the adolescent is conscious of the consequences of her decisions, both positive and negative.

[ 11 ] Elements of precariousness remain, but the intensity of services and accompaniment by the Director of Youth Protection, permit to consider that the risks are soon to be at an acceptable level to no longer require the application of protective measures.

Considering the past events, it is reasonable that the mother stress concerns of the potential of renewed degeneration, but the structures and services to be put in place through community services offer a sufficient safety net (anger management therapy, CLSC). [ 12 ] The intervention of the [Center A] educator will continue for the period of the measures. [ 13 ] After reviewing the evidence, the Court considers that three months is insufficient to accompany the family towards the termination of the Director's implication, while continuing to ensure that the adolescent consolidate her efforts to stem her behavioural issues. [ 14 ] The initial decision, of which the revision is sought, terminates on December 10, 2014.

Notwithstanding the events leading to the revision, the Court estimates that the adolescent's situation still justifies this initial evaluation, which also affords a more reasonable period to effectively put in place concrete services for the family. [ 15 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] AS FINAL MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be maintain in her maternal environment; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents participate actively in the application of the measures; [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES the contacts between the adolescent and her father upon agreement between the parties; [ 21 ] PROHIBITS the adolescent to communicate with Mr.

C; [ 22 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until December 10, 2014; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: August 4, 2014