2014 QCCQ 17781, 2014 QCCQ 17781

Protection de la jeunesse — 146019 JL 4031 COURT OF QUEBEC 2014 QCCQ 17781 YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-023095-102 DATE : June 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : THE HONORABLE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Director and X Born on […], 1999 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby gives reasons for the decision rendered further to the hearing held on June 16, 2014, as required by

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection A (" the Director" ), to extend an order rendered by the undersigned on November 20, 2012 entrusting the adolescent to her mother's care with other corrective measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 3 ] More particularly, the Director alleges the following: 3.1. the mother has benefited form the support of an educator until April 2013, when his ongoing support was no longer deemed necessary due to the mother's gains; 3.2. the adolescent struggled in a challenging academic program and eventually had to transfer to a different program at Organism A which she enjoys; 3.3. the adolescent was frequently absent from school, at times for medical reasons but often times without valid reason; as a result the adolescent needs to repeat grade eight; 3.4. the adolescent continues to require much supervision which can often times be overwhelming for the mother, who must also juggle the needs of her other daughter, Y; 3.5. the father refuses any involvement with social services and adamantly refuses to visit the adolescent under the modalities set out

by the Director of Youth Protection which include undergoing random drug testing; as a result, the father's contacts with the adolescent have been very limited; 3.6. the family continues to require the ongoing intervention of social services to solidify their gains. [ 4 ] The hearing began on November 11 th , 2013. [ 5 ] Until around then, X remained entrusted to her mother and did relatively well. X struggled somewhat with school, was switched schools but ended-up failing her school year.

At home, she required close monitoring from her mother but no serious issues were identified. [ 6 ] The case was initially scheduled to proceed on November 11, 2013 however, by consent, the case was postponed to March 10, 2014 given that the Director had just received new information regarding the adolescent's behaviour. Of note, the father was absent on that date. [ 7 ] The evaluation into this new information revealed that X was presenting quite severe behaviour problems, including drug and alcohol consumption and parties at home without her mother's knowledge.

Given the severity of the situation, the Director contemplated placing X in a rehabilitation centre. However, X proposed going into the Organism B program instead in order to deal with her substance abuse issues. She integrated Organism B on an emergency basis on December 20, 2013. This measure was then sanctioned by the Court on December 24, 2013 . [ 8 ] During the next few months, X did relatively well in Organism B and during home visits. [ 9 ] On March 10, 2014 , the father, duly notified, was again absent. The Court proceeded in his absence with the consent of the other parties.

Reports filed for that hearing indicated that the father had been minimally involved with his daughter, refusing to have contacts with her under the Director's terms. The father had not collaborated with the Director and the extent to which he may have received the services recommended in the last Court order was unknown. [ 10 ] The Court again rendered an interim decision at the parties' request in order to see how X would do at Organism B and see if an integration back to her mother's would be possible. [ 11 ] Today , the father is again absent although notified.

The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 12 ] Since the March hearing, X has progressed well at Organism B. However, serious issues have arisen in the mother-daughter relationship. It has come to light that the mother drinks during X's home visits and that she may also have alcohol-related problems. X has had conflicts with her mother during visits due to this and other issues. Consequently, she regularly returns to Organism B in crisis. The mother has also reacted to X disclosing information concerning her. [ 13 ] Due to this set of circumstances, X is not ready to return to her mother's care.

Organism B has agreed to extend X's stay for another month to continue to work on her reintegration. [ 14 ] Today, all parties present agree that X's "rehabilitation centre" placement be extended for a maximum period of three months to continue X's reintegration home.

The placement will take place at Organism B, at least for the next four weeks. [ 15 ] X and her mother will then continue to receive services to address their difficulties for one year. [ 16 ] Today, X and her mother are requesting that father-daughter contacts be suspended until he seizes the Court and justifies that visits should resume in X's best interest. The Director has no objection to proceeding this way.

Given that the father has not been involved with his daughter nor the DYP and that there is no information to the effect that he has brought any changes to his life, the Court agrees with this request. [ 17 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 18 ] GRANTS the Motion for Extension ; and [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the adolescent, X, is still compromised; [ 20 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES : [ 21 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of three (3) months, with integration to her mother's care as soon as the situation allows; AND FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR : [ 22 ] ORDERS that X fully complete the Organism B program and actively participate in the follow-up services or recommendations made by Organism B; [ 23 ] ORDERS that X undergo random drug testing; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from consuming alcohol in the presence of her daughter; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend individual therapy or other supportive services; [ 26 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the father and his daughter until the comes back in front of the Court;

[ 27 ] ORDERS a person working for Centre jeunesse A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and the family; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 29 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; Town A, this 16 th day of July, 2014 _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marie-Odile Lamaute Attorney for the adolescent Me Francis Cloutier Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: CL/nl November 11 th , 2013, March 10 th and June 16th, 2014