2012 QCCQ 7948, 2012 QCCQ 7948

Protection de la jeunesse — 121671 2012 QCCQ 7948 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 635-41-000404-118 DATE: May 4, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in CITY A -and- X, residing and domiciled in CITY A, province of Québec, district A Youth -and- A, residing and domiciled in CITY A, province of Québec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in CITY A, province of Québec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a petition asking to review a decision rendered on November 15, 2011 in the situation of X, born on […], 1997.

She was then entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months with a progressive reintegration, and different measures were ordered to help this family. The applicant now recommends quite the same measures: the placement in a rehabilitation center for a period of six months with a progressive reintegration and measures of help for a period of one year. [ 2 ] Parties are present and represented at the hearing. The parents would like their daughter back with them; as for the youth, she would also like to go back home. [ 3 ] Following the last judgment, the youth attended the Group Home in city B.

She was assigned a primary worker and worked closely with the Group Home coordinator. After a few days, she began to have a hard time respecting the rules and schedule. She began school shortly after her arrival, however she was frequently roaming the halls and was not working well. [ 4 ] On November 17, 2011, she went into a suicidal crisis and was hospitalized because she attempted to strangle herself with her sweater. She spent the night at the hospital and was allowed to return to the Group Home the next day. On December 1 st , she ran away from the Group Home and only returned at six fifty a.m.

Again, she tried to strangle herself with her hands. [ 5 ] On December 8, the parents, who live in city A, went to city B to spend some time with their daughter. While she was under their responsibility, they allowed her to go in the community without supervision. When she did not return to the Group Home for her curfew, the parents helped to find her. They found her and brought her back to the Group Home. [ 6 ] From December 21 st , 2011 to January 4, 2012, the youth had a home visit for Christmas in her community. It seems that everything went well.

She returned to city B without hesitation claming that she was missing her boyfriend. [ 7 ] On January 7, 2012, she ran away from the Group Home and returned at four o’clock a.m. On January 11, she ran away another time. Upon her return, she reported that her boyfriend had tried to strangle her. For the next few days, her behaviour improved a lot at the Group Home. [ 8 ] On January 26, 2012, she ran away and came back the next morning at six ten a.m. She bragged that, while she was away, she was smoking drugs and drinking.

On February 5, 2012, she was scheduled to leave for her community for a visit with her parents. On that day, she ran away from the Group Home. She returned the next day and admitted that she had past out from drinking and was not sure if someone had sexually assaulted her. She was brought to the hospital and a “rape kit” was done. [ 9 ] At that time, plans were in progress to have the youth attend the Group Home A in city C where there is much more structure

and security. On February 19, she ran away again from the Group Home and was only found two days later. As she requested to be entrusted to the Group Home in city C, she was escorted to the Group Home A on February 22 nd , 2012. During her transfer, she mentioned that she would of work hard to improve her behaviour and that she wanted to be better in school. Upon arriving, she was complying with the rules. On the following weekend, she became frustrated by the rules and lost some privileges. [ 10 ] The parents would like to have their child back at home in their community.

They have always collaborated with Youth Protection and they helped the Group Home of city B many times to find their daughter by calling on the FM. They acknowledge that she has behaviour problems and that they were not able, at the time, to put in place the structure and discipline she needed. [ 11 ] The father testified that his daughter had problems in school and with her peers. Both parents thought at the time that it would be a good thing for her to be at a Group Home. They are now under the impression that her situation did not improve, but worsened when she was at the Group Home in city B.

They also mentioned that they had trouble to communicate with their daughter when she was in city B and that was costing them a lot of money. Since she is at [Group Home] A, her situation has improved and they can easily communicate with her. [ 12 ] When the youth visited her parents in city A, they did not have any problems with her. She did not run away or consume any drugs during her stay. Her father believes that her daughter’s behaviour, when she was attending school in city A, was a reaction to the fact that the teachers were pushing her too much considering her capacity.

This is why he considers she should go to a school or course where she would learn things like cooking, sewing, needing, etc. For her part, the mother believes that her daughter should complete the learning paths. [ 13 ] The father says that he has taking the steps to be sure that all his children attend school; he wakes up before them to make sure that they are in school. In addition, he maintains that he does not consume alcohol or drugs at his place. [ 14 ] Since the last judgment, the youth had serious behaviour problems.

She was running away from the Group Home, consuming drugs and alcohol and putting herself in dangerous situations to a point that she thinks she was sexually assaulted while she was past out. The petitioner says that the youth’s situation has improved since she has been in city C, which is February 22 nd , 2012. The youth herself had requested to be transferred in this Group Home and said that she wanted to improve her behaviour. [ 15 ] Even though the parents have good intentions, they are also in the process of putting in place rules and structure in their own household.

Fortunately, they have always collaborated with Youth Protection and this is very helpful for everyone, mostly for their daughter. [ 16 ] But the youth’s situation is still very fragile. There has been improvement just lately, but she is still in the process of learning to correct her behaviour problems and to develop her skills so that she does not end up in dangerous situations where someone could take advantage of her.

The Court considers that this could be achieved if she stays at [Group home] A for another period of four months. [ 17 ] Considering the admissions, the testimonies and the different reports filed, the Court considers that the situation of the youth is still in danger. The other measures recommended by the petitioner are in the youth’s best interest and respect her rights. THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the petition; MAINTAINS that the situation of X, born […], 1997, is still endangered accordingly to

Section 38 Y.P.A.; REVISES the decision rendered on November 15, 2011 in the youth’s situation; ENTRUSTS the youth to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months with a progressive reintegration when the situation will allow it; RECOMMENDS that the center be [Groupe Home] A; ORDERS • that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the youth’s family; • that the director of youth protection organize or make things easier in the contacts between the youth and her parents; • that the youth attend school every day and participate in her classes; • that the youth be submit to a psychological assessment; • that the parents participate actively in learning about parental skills with the CLSC and Youth Protection workers; • that the parents report periodically to the director on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the youth is in danger; • that the youth and the youth’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the tribunal; RECOMMENDS that the director of youth protection help the parents to pay the long distance calls made by the parents to find their

child when she was at the Group Home; ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of this enactment, if requested; ENTRUSTS the youth’s situation to the director who shall then see that the measure is carried out. ALL measures apply for a period of ten months, except for the placement. __________________________________ Marc E. Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Alexandre Cimon Counsel for the applicant M e Matthieu Brassard Counsel for the childr M e Marie Claude De Gagné Counsel for the parents Dates of hearing: March 13 and 16, 2012