2017 QCCQ 20111, 2017 QCCQ 20111

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710321 2017 QCCQ 20111 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000024-150 DATE: July 10, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2002 TEENAGER ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits a motion to review and extend a judgment rendered on December 9, 2016, by the Honourable Denyse Leduc, who ordered the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of five months with a reintegration into the mother’s care, if the situation allowed it. [ 2 ] For the hearing, the mother is present and represented by Mtre. Michel Grenier. The adolescent is present and represented by Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis and Mtre.

Camille Champeval acts on behalf of the applicant. The father, despite the fact that he received the motion, is not present nor represented. The parties asked the Court to proceed in his absence. [ 3 ] Due to her behaviour, it was not possible to proceed to a reintegration and therefore, X was kept in a reception centre until the end of the five month period. At the reception centre, the adolescent challenges the rules, is disrespectful with the professionals and puts herself at risk. She refuses to collaborate with the staff. [ 4 ] During the winter, she participated in the “[Activity A]”.

She was able to finish the program even if some incidents occurred. Not long after the end of the journey, she started to drink again. She was sent back to the reception centre. [ 5 ] On April 7, the adolescent attended the A Centre for a two-week program, designed to address issues with alcohol and drugs, suicidal thoughts or behaviours.

After two days, she was expelled from the centre because she stole propane at the camp. [ 6 ] During home leaves, the adolescent posted on Facebook different messages while she was under the influence of intoxicating substances. [ 7 ] She’s also disrespectful with her mother and grandparents. [ 8 ] For the time being, the adolescent still needs a structured environment. [ 9 ] The Director of Youth Protection is asking for a placement of one year in a reception centre. [ 10 ] Both the teenager and her mother would agree to a six-month placement. [ 11 ] X declares to the Court that she would be willing to attend a treatment centre to try to resolve her addictions to intoxicating substances.

[ 12 ] With the problems presented by the teenager and her addiction to intoxicating substances, a six-month period is too short to attain durable results. [ 13 ] The Court is of the opinion that if X attends a treatment centre, she will need help afterwards not to relapse. Considering the fact that when she had home visits, she had always consumed alcohol or drugs, her return from a therapy centre must be in a reception centre for a certain period of time. [ 14 ] It appears that a ten-month period is more likely to be adequate to attain these goals.

For these motives, the Court: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 17 ] ORDERS her placement in a reception centre for a period of ten months; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection take all necessary steps to have the teenager assessed by a psychologist within the next sixty days, starting on May 26, 2017, and to FOLLOW all recommendations of the professional; [ 19 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS a close follow-up with a therapist or a psychologist for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 20 ] ORDERS X to collaborate with the professional; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to X and her family for a period of fifteen months; [ 22 ] PROHIBITS X to consume any alcohol or drugs, except with a valid medical prescription; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access rights with the mother be encouraged, but such access rights will be supervised as for the modalities and the frequency by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that X attend a treatment centre for her addictions and to collaborate with an aftercare program; [ 25 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyer for the youth Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: May 26, 2017