2012 QCCQ 8146, 2012 QCCQ 8146

Protection de la jeunesse — 124325 2012 QCCQ 8146 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001247-094 DATE: July 6, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in Tow A Applicant and X, born on [...], 2000 Teenager and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking for the review of the judgment rendered on November 24, 2011, whereby Honourable Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q., ratified an agreement reached by the parties. [ 2 ] At the time, she had herself been seized of the case through an application for review of a decision rendered on February 2, 2010 by Honourable Richard Laflamme, J.C.Q. [ 3 ] The latter had concluded that the situation of the three children born of the couple was endangered.

In the conclusion, he stated that their development and security were threatened on the basis of the couple’s instability, the mother’s way of life as well as her behaviour with the children. [ 4 ] More particularly, these factors had caused symptoms of anxiety in X at the time so that it was needed to provide her with a calm, stable and safe environment. [ 5 ] Consequently, a foster placement was ordered for an initial twelve months, which was later, as mentioned above, extended by Justice Denyse Leduc, J.C.Q., in November 2011. [ 6 ] Considering that the situation of X requires further supervision, despite meaningful improvements, the applicant is now asking for the placement to be maintained until the start of 2013. [ 7 ] At the hearing, the father is present but not represented; as to both the mother and youth, they are absent but heard through their respective lawyer. [ 8 ] While the girl does not take a stand on the application, both parents agree with the measure sought. [ 9 ] To summarize her recent history, let us mention that she has been placed at [Center A] since June 30, 2010. [ 10 ] This way she could benefit from all the services and the supervision her condition required. [ 11 ] According to the applicant, on the basis of the significant improvements observed, it would be time to contemplate her return to Town A, her home community. [ 12 ] She could be placed for the moment, with a view to gradually reintegrate her with her mother. [ 13 ] However, to facilitate the transition, it is important for the youth to acquire further knowledge, namely effective means of

managing the stressful events of her life. [ 14 ] Although she could not do it earlier for various reasons, Mrs.

A now seems to agree with the measure. [ 15 ] As a result, it seems justified to support the recommendations made by the applicant and to order, among others, the placement in the community of Town A for a period ending on January 31, 2013. [ 16 ] In this respect, the lawyers have informed the undersigned, shortly after the judgment on the case was reserved, that the desired resource, contrary to what had first been said, was not part of the “foster home” category, but rather of the “rehabilitation services centre”. [ 17 ] Therefore, with the agreement of everyone concerned, the​ conclusion made in this regard is modified by this judgment. [ 18 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a rehabilitation centre, namely the specialised foster home of Town A, for a period ending January 31, 2013, with gradual reintegration into her mother’s home, if the situation allows; [ 22 ] ORDERS Mrs.

A to seek help through a stress management program; [ 23 ] ORDERS that all the contacts between the father and the youth be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the frequency and modality; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from drinking or allowing others persons to drink when the children are present; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or organisation provide aid, counsel and assistance to X and her family for a period of twelve months; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection representative to visit the mother’s home without prior notice; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the teenager to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the teenager Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: June 19, 2012