2015 QCCQ 12226, 2015 QCCQ 12226

Protection de la jeunesse — 152319 2015 QCCQ 12226 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000660-159 DATE: April 10, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 1999 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] in City A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at […] in City B , district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] in City C , district A (Quebec) […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 asks the Court to declare the security or development of X, born on [...], 1999, endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] If the Court concludes that the youth's safety is endangered the applicant recommends as one of the applicable measures that the youth be entrusted to her father. [ 3 ] The youth is present and represented by counsel. Both parents are present and represented by counsel. [ 4 ] Me Lemire represents the Director of Youth Protection. [ 5 ] Both parents acknowledge that their daughter's safety is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

f) of the Youth Protection Act . They agree with the applicant's recommendations concerning the measures. [ 6 ] Counsel for the youth challenges the fact that the youth's safety is endangered pursuant to

section 38

f) but acknowledges that it is compromised in regards of 38 b) 2°. According to the counsel the main reason of the endangerment is the persistent conflict between the parents which constitutes « psychological ill-treatment » pursuant to

section 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act . As for the recommendations concerning the measures the youth agrees with them. The facts [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 8 ] On February 6, 2015, the Court orders the provisional compulsory foster care of the adolescent in a reception center for a period of 30 days. The Court orders that the youth be evaluated for toxicomania and recommends a psychological assessment. [ 9 ] The parents have been separated for several years. [ 10 ] The father has the legal custody of the adolescent.

Both parents have a hard time communicating. [ 11 ] The mother had the adolescent custody for many years. At first, Mr B was not legally recognized as the adolescent's father. He had sporadic contacts with the youth and the mother moved around. She moved to [Province A] a couple of years without the father's consent. [ 12 ] Around 2007, Mr B became more present in the adolescent's life and after being legally declared X's father, he got full custody in 2012.

[ 13 ] The parents separated when the adolescent was very young. The parents had a hard time communicating and it had gotten worst when the father became more present in the adolescent's life. [ 14 ] In July 2014, the adolescent tried to commit suicide at her mother's house. She took many morphine pills (belonging to her mother). When the paramedics arrived they had to proceed to a manual resuscitation since the adolescent was not breathing. She is currently treated for a depression and is taking a medication (Prozac, 10 mg). [ 15 ] That incident shaken the parents a lot.

The mother blamed the father saying that what happened was a result of constant pressure exerted by the father. The mother is convinced that the adolescent is at risk in his home. [ 16 ] The parents became very tense after this incident and their relationship got worst. [ 17 ] The father confirmed that he was firm with the adolescent. At the end of the previous school year, the father was noticing a change in the adolescent's behaviour.

She showed less interest in the things she used to like (school, sports, friends, etc.) Being scared she could get worst the father pushed her so she could get back on the right path. [ 18 ] According to the Youth Protection worker that pressure, lack of communication between the father and the adolescent, and other factors lead up to X's suicide attempt in July 2014. [ 19 ] In December 2014, because things were not going well at home the father entrusted the adolescent to his own sister. [ 20 ] On January 2, 2015, the adolescent wanted to leave her aunt's. She contacted her mother and left to go to City B.

The aunt called the police. [ 21 ] The police officers went to the mother's to bring back the adolescent to her aunt. When they entered the house they smelled strong odor of marijuana as well. [ 22 ] The mother denies using drugs but admits it for the past. [ 23 ] On January 28, the adolescent was still living at her aunt's. In the evening she told her aunt that she was going to a friend to pick up a bag and was coming back right after. She did not come home. Around midnight the aunt called the police. [ 24 ] The police found the youth at her cousin's place. She was alone in the house sleeping on the couch.

There was an odor of burned marijuana and five « bongs » (substance abuse tools) on the living room table. The youth was brought back to her aunt. [ 25 ] The aunt informed to Youth Protection services that she could not continue to keep the adolescent at her place.

One of the reasons was the presence of drug. [ 26 ] The youth refused to go back to her father's place. [ 27 ] Couple of days before the adolescent left her aunt's, the latter was informed by the child whom X shared her room that X would wake up in the middle of the night to smoke pot in the room next to the window. [ 28 ] From January 28 to February 5, the adolescent lived at her mother's house. [ 29 ] On February 3, the Director of Youth Protection informed the mother that X's placement was considered.

The mother was opposed to the placement. [ 30 ] The next day, as the father feared that the mother could run away with the youth (as she did in the past) two Youth Protection workers showed up at the mother's house. The mother was outside with two suitcases. She then explained that they were for her friend (a neighbour). When questioned where she intended to go the mother was unable to give an answer. [ 31 ] An emergency measure was taken that day. The youth was brought to a rehabilitation center. At her arrival to the center a search was conducted through her bags.

Two containers with marijuana crumbles were found in them. [ 32 ] On February 6, 2015, the Court entrusted the youth in a reception center for 30 days. [ 33 ] On February 25, the applicant met with the youth, the father and an educator from the rehabilitation center. This meeting was to clear the tension between the two of them and to verify the possibility of the youth going back to her father. The meeting went very good.

At the end of the meeting the youth accepted to go back at her father's home. [ 34 ] On February 27, the youth was met by a psychologist for an assessment. [Social Worker 2], psychologist has described the youth as someone who has been put under a lot of pressure in order to please to both her parents. She stated being used by her parents as a go-between. [Social Worker 2] concluded that the youth was living a conflict of loyalty towards her parents. He concluded as well that a shared custody was not an option because it could worsen the conflict lived by the youth.

Finally to maintain the youth with her father (or a third party) was the most favourable option to best meet the youth's interests. [ 35 ] X's subjected to a drug use assessment during her stay at the rehabilitation center. The results showed that she does not have a dependency to marijuana but is using it to numb undesirable feelings or to follow her friends. Decision [ 36 ] The youth is fifteen years old. Her health is good. She has no learning disability or any behavioural disturbance. [ 37 ] She wants to go back with her father.

She is tired of being used as a go-between because of a lack of communication between

her parents. [ 38 ] She acknowledges using drugs to feel numb and to be with her friends. She does not wish to use it again. [ 39 ] All the parties admit that the security or development of the youth is endangered pursuant to

section 38 b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 40 ] The evidence as a whole reveals that the conflict between the parents is the main reason why the security or development of the youth is in danger. All the parties agree on that as well. The adolescent's behaviour shows how her life has been affected by her parents' conflict. [ 41 ] The Court concludes that there is a preponderant evidence that the security or development of X, born on [...], 1999, is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . The evidence is insufficient pursuant to

section 38

f) of the same Act. [ 42 ] The Court concludes that the applicant's recommendations for the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the youth's best interest. For these reasons the Court: [ 43 ] Grants the petition; [ 44 ] Declares that the security or development of X , born on [...] , 1999, is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 45 ] Orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 46 ] Entrusts the youth to her father; [ 47 ] Orders the parents to report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection concerning the measures that they will apply in their own and in their daughter's regard, to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the youth is endangered; [ 48 ] Orders that the contacts between the youth and the mother be scheduled according to the judgment of the Superior Court as for the frequency and the modalities, and that those contacts be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and in the presence of a third person approved by the Director of Youth Protection, as long as judged necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 49 ] Orders the youth and the parents to take an active

part in the application of all the measures; [ 50 ] Orders the Director of Youth Protection to provide the youth and her parents with family counselling as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 51 ] Takes judicial notice of the youth's consent and orders the youth to follow a drug use awareness workshop; [ 52 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the parents; [ 53 ] Orders the Director of Youth Protection to provide the youth with the necessary specific health care and services needed by her situation; [ 54 ] Takes judicial notice of the youth's consent and orders the youth to continue her medical follow-ups; [ 55 ] Orders the mother to be sober in the presence of the youth; [ 56 ] Orders the mother not to let any people consuming drugs and alcohol be in the youth's presence; [ 57 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 58 ] Entrusts youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michel-Étienne Parayre, attorney for the youth Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother

Me Peggy Corbel Warolin, attorney for the father Date of hearing: March 6, 2015