2013 QCCQ 8853, 2013 QCCQ 8853

Protection de la jeunesse — 133484 2013 QCCQ 8853 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004142-124 760-41-004143-122 DATE: March 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born […], 1998 Y , born […], 1998 Adolescents THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The adolescents present motions for the revision of the Court decision rendered on October 10, 2012 in their respective situations. [ 2 ] Within measures of aid and support for one year, the previous judgment entrusts the adolescents to a reception center for six months. [ 3 ] The adolescents allege that their situation sufficiently improved to justify their return to their maternal environment, with the

pursuance of services from the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in the father's absence, as evidence demonstrates his service of the proceeding. The mother consigns her admissions to the Court file and agrees with the conclusions of the motion. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection agrees with the reintegration of the adolescents in their home environment, and recommends the reduction of the measures to a period of six months. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] Since the last order, the adolescents remain in the same reception center, but in different units.

They continue to attend their community school, A. [ 8 ] The adolescents return home every weekend. In general, the family reports an improvement in their communication. [ 9 ] In their school setting, the adolescents demonstrate an overall change in their behaviours. They are polite and respectful to staff and students. They show a sense of responsibility by respecting the school

schedule and rules. They engage in extra curricular activities. [ 10 ] The family participates with success in the ''Family Ties'' program provided by a [Center A], in view of improving family communication. Both adolescents complete an anger management program within their respective units. [ 11 ] In view of the stabilization of the adolescent's behaviours, the Court returns the adolescents to the provisional care of their mother on January 17, 2013. [ 12 ] The return home coincides with a set back of the adolescent's behaviours.

In their school environment, there is an increase in manipulative and disrespectful behaviours towards staff and students. They skip classes and continue to present academic difficulties. [ 13 ] A follow-up commences with a homeward bound worker at [Center A]. The worker witnesses the adolescents being verbally abusive towards their mother. [ 14 ] The mother states that she perceives progress on all levels and that the situation at home is presently functional. She no longer tolerates any physical altercations nor abuse, and her daughters respect this rule.

Verbal abuse is still prevalent, but tolerated on her part. She lets her daughters deal autonomously with their own issues, which diminishes the potential conflicts.

She is confident of the continued success of the reintegration. [ 15 ] The Court concludes that although the situation remains fragile, there is improvement to the point of permitting a reintegration of the adolescents in their family environment. [ 16 ] Up to now, the interventions address the individual issues, but the inherent dysfunction of the family unit remains to be dealt with in an effective manner, leaving the situation still fragile to degeneration. [ 17 ] Contrary to the Court's recommendations, as well as the adolescent's and mother's request, the Director determines to not place the siblings in the same unit.

The Director justifies this decision by the fact that the adolescents are frequently together, either at home or at school. Although this decision falls in the Director's domain, the failure to directly address the sibling issues adds a continued factor of precariousness to their return home by relegating to the mother, once again, the task of dealing with the cyclical intensity of this relationship. [ 18 ] The history of the interventions to date demonstrates that the adolescents function well in separate and structured environments, yet in the home environment, there is failure to maintain this stability.

The mother's continued tolerance of inappropriate behaviours, at any level, serves to diminish her parental role and encourage the cyclical degeneration of the family unit. [ 19 ] It is essential that the situation continue to progress. The intervention seeks to bring the mother to a comfort level as to the expression of her parental authority and, concurrently, ensure that the adolescents respect a reasonable code of civility and rules in the various spheres of their lives.

For this to succeed, the adolescents and the mother must remain invested and cooperate with the measures in a more than superficial manner. [ 20 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescents are still in danger; [ 23 ] REVISES the order rendered on October 10, 2012; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescents to their mother; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescents and their family; [ 26 ] ORDERS that adolescents and their mother participate actively to the measures; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescents and their mother report to the Director; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescents and their father be determined following agreement between the parties;

[ 29 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 6 months; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescents to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescents Date of hearing: March 18, 2013