2011 QCCQ 9809, 2011 QCCQ 9809

Protection de la jeunesse — 112676 2011 QCCQ 9809 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth chamber No: 615-41-001310-092 DATE: May 26, 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1995 [INTERVENANTE 1], technician in social work, exercising her profession at the Youth Protection Centre A, having a place of business at […] in town B, district A, […] Applicant -and- A, residing and domiciled at […] in town C, district A, Quebec, […] Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled at […] in town C, district A, Quebec, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (1 and 2), Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The director of youth protection demands the review of the decision rendered on March 6, 2009, concerning X, born on […], 1995. [ 2 ] The parents and their son are present. The teenager is represented by lawyer. II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present file does not raise any litigious issue. The father and the teenager consent to the extension of the foster care measure in a rehabilitation centre. The mother does not disagree but needs further explanation.

Indeed she is more preoccupied by the second measure ordered in 2009, more specifically the measure ordering the foster care of her son in a foster family, as soon as he leaves the rehabilitation centre. III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] Since the last decision rendered on March 6, 2009, the teenager made significant progress in all fields of his life. He receives support, psychological services and accepts structure. Nevertheless, in the last few weeks, his behaviour has deteriorated.

This deterioration constitutes an indication that the objectives of a structure environment have not been totally fulfilled, as of today. [ 5 ] The director demands an extension of the foster care measure in a rehabilitation centre for a period of 4 months, more specifically in a group home. [ 6 ] A foster family, corresponding to the teenager's needs, has not yet been identified.

[ 7 ] As explained during the audience, the measure concerning the foster care of the teenager in a foster family was decided in 2009 and its application does not require a review of the situation.

Nevertheless, considering the position of the mother and the strong bond between her and her son, it would be in the interest of the teenager, should interference be noted, that the situation be presented in Court. [ 8 ] The transfer of the child in a foster family represents a delicate process considering that it comes after a long rehabilitation process that is not and will not at the time of the transfer, be totally completed.

The teenager must be brought to express and affirm his position and must be supported. [ 9 ] The mother's acceptance of a foster family, until her son reaches the age of majority is intimately linked to the position of her son, clearly expressed. [ 10 ] Presently, the testimony of the teenager does not indicate that he is ready to express and explained to his mother, the impossibility of reintegrating the family residence. [ 11 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 13 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the teenager in danger; [ 14 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered on March 6, 2009; [ 15 ] MAINTAINS all the measures, as ordered in the decision of March 6, 2009, with the following exception: − the foster care of the child in a rehabilitation centre, for a period of 24 months starting on March 6, 2009, is extended for a period of 4 months, starting on April 19, 2011; [ 16 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the foster care measure, if requested to do so, by the director of youth protection; [ 17 ] ENTRUTS the situation of the child, to the director of youth protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Claude Cossette Lawyer for the children Me Valérie Martel Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Date of hearing: April 19, 2011