2011 QCCQ 13342, 2011 QCCQ 13342

Protection de la jeunesse — 113631 2011 QCCQ 13342 JD 1705 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 450-41-001106-005 DATE: 17 MAY 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: HONOURABLE JUSTICE MICHEL DUBOIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD : X Date of birth: […]1994 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, working at […], town A, district A, Petitioner And A , […], town A, QC […], And B , […], town A, QC […], Parents of the child and LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE , […], town B, district A ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In his motion of 7 March 2011 , amended on 16 May 2011 , the Director of Youth Protection asked the Court to undertake a new review of the situation of the youth X, who will be seventeen years old in three months.

[ 2 ] Specifically, the Court was asked to review the judgment of 22 June 2010 concerning her, taking into account all of the judgments rendered by the undersigned judge in her life, over the last eleven years. [ 3 ] The Court does not intend to give a full

summary of this adolescent's life, as the ups and downs of its stages are already well documented in previous judgments. [ 4 ] It should be recalled, nonetheless, that the youth has been living in the same foster family since 2005 .

In psychological and affective terms, she considers these foster parents to be her parents. [ 5 ] When the youth was obliged to live for approximately two years in a readaptation centre, she maintained a meaningful relationship with her foster family and made efforts to return to live with the people she considered to be her family. [ 6 ] It is clear that this youth greatly wishes to live with "her family". [ 7 ] It is equally clear that the foster family also wishes to have this adolescent be part of the family. [ 8 ] However, it is important to gauge the difference between the will or desire and the reality and the capacity to live a pleasant family life under the same roof. [ 9 ] The Court finds itself here in a situation of a repeating pattern. [ 10 ] The youth and "her family" go through a short honeymoon period together and then the youth, who has an attachment disorder, defies the rules, provokes confrontations and manifests opposition, not because she is a bad youth, but simply because she does not believe she is worthy and capable of being loved . [ 11 ] Even though the foster parents understand this way of functioning, the situation sometimes becomes unmanageable and unlivable for everyone. [ 12 ] On 8 March 2011 , the Court had to order interim relief and the youth returned to live in the readaptation centre. [ 13 ] The evidence also shows that in February 2011 , the youth spent a period of reflection in a crisis centre. [ 14 ] On 24 March 2011 , the professionals assembled to discuss the adolescent's situation concluded that she still displayed a need for readaptation, manifested by her difficulty managing her anger and respecting authority. [ 15 ] On 29 March 2011 , a clinical review of the youth's entire situation was carried out and at that time, placement at the readaptation centre for a six-month period was considered.

However, after the foster mother appealed to the reviewer, a re-evaluation of the situation was agreed upon. [ 16 ] On 31 March 2011 , this second review took place, during which review the adolescent attempted to negotiate the terms of the contract previously agreed to with the foster mother.

The latter refused to negotiate. [ 17 ] This is the background against which, on 5 April 2011 , the Director of Youth Protection recommended that the Court issue a second interim order to maintain the adolescent's placement at the readaptation centre, with authorization to return to the foster family depending on the situation evolving as was then hoped. [ 18 ] The chronological description of the events that have occurred since the youth resumed her visits to the foster family shows that the adolescent's mode of functioning has not really changed. [ 19 ] Professional opinions are divided, but incline toward the view that the adolescent should be allowed to see her experience in this foster family through, even if everything suggests that she will suffer another failure . [ 20 ] The same pattern is repeating itself.

The Director of Youth Protection recommends keeping the youth in her foster family, which she considers to be her family, while stipulating that in case of failure, the plan will be to focus instead on developing the adolescent's autonomy from a more neutral environment (readaptation centre). [ 21 ] The mother's lawyer appeared in the morning, but as usual, she found herself with no client and no mandate.

In this context, she asked to cease representing the party, and her request was granted. [ 22 ] These are the reasons allowing the Court to state that the pattern is repeating itself and will in all probability repeat itself again ... in the youth's interest, it would seem! [ 23 ] This judgment confirms and completes the reasoned decision made from the bench. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT : GRANTS the present amended motion. DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger. REVISES the Court order rendered on 22 June 2010 in the present file;

ORDERS the youth's placement in a foster family for a period of six (6) months ; MAINTAINS all the other measures ordered on 22 June 2010; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Michel DuBois, J.C.Q. M e Monique Lavallée For the D.Y.P. M e Geneviève Lafontaine For the youth Date of hearing: 17 May 2011