2017 QCCQ 18891, 2017 QCCQ 18891

Protection de la jeunesse — 178908 2017 QCCQ 18891 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000061-152 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 A (D.Y.P.) submits to the Court a motion in revision of the decision rendered on August 30, 2016 by Honourable Judge Jacques Ladouceur, in regards of the situation of X, 15 years old. The applicant recommends the youth’s placement in a reception centre for another period of six months. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the youth and her mother are present and represented by Me Constantin Kiryakidis and Me Michel Grenier.

The applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], is represented by Me Adelia Ferreira.

The father is not present and he is not involved in the youth’s life. [ 3 ] The parties admit all the allegations and agree with the recommendation proposed by the applicant in her revision report filed. [ 4 ] The Court considers that there is a preponderance of evidence that: − The youth was admitted to the […] treatment program on January 9, 2017; − She participated well at the beginning of the treatment but her collaboration started to deteriorate as time went by; − The youth was prematurely discharged from the treatment program on March 30, 2017 due to her general lack of collaboration; − Following her discharge, X was reintegrated back to her mother’s care; − On August 1, 2017 the mother came to the youth protection office, stating that the youth had reverted to her old habits in last month; − X has been consuming alcohol since her return to her mother’s care; − On July 31, she was physically aggressive towards her mother by throwing a chair and coffee mugs at her and breaking her cell phone.

All of this incident lead to the mother’s hospitalisation; − The youth was intoxicated during the incident; − The mother and X’s sister fear for their safety in the family home; − Immediate protective measures were taken on August 1, and then the youth is placed in a reception centre.

[ 5 ] Adding to the revision report, an observation report from the group home is also filed. It is the same group home where the youth stayed last year for the same period of time, six months. [ 6 ] The educator, Mrs. [Social Worker 2], reports that the youth has shown lot of improvement and interacts well with peers and staff. She is able to function well in the group home. The main improvement is that the youth now acknowledges her issues and is ready to take steps in improving her behaviour.

She recently met a psycho-therapist and she wants to continue her follow-up. [ 7 ] Also, the youth is now attending school regularly and she is becoming more stable in her behaviour. [ 8 ] To ensure that the youth stabilizes herself requires different services to be provided in a structured environment. A regular follow-up with the psycho-therapist will help her to deal with her emotions and to accept her mother’s authority. [ 9 ] The Court also believes that the mother and the youth will require the services of an external educator when X will reintegrate her mother’s home.

It is quite important that the mother be supported in imposing structures to her daughter. [ 10 ] Consequently, considering the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that the D.Y.P.’s recommendations are appropriate.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2002 are in danger; [ 13 ] ORDERS her placement in a reception centre for six months with progressive reinsertion with her mother; [ 14 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide to the youth and her mother the services of an external educator for six months after her reintegration with the mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS the youth to attend school regularly, except for valid reasons; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the youth continues her psychological follow-up for the duration required by the psychologist; [ 17 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and her mother for one year; [ 18 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Constantin Kiryakidis Attorney for the youth Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 10, 2017