r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 12563

Protection de la jeunesse — 152453 2015 QCCQ 12563 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004402-130 DATE: February 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] , 1999 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents a motion for extension of a Court decision concerning X born on [...], 1999, seeking that protective measures continue for one year, including the adolescent remaining in foster care. [ 2 ] Both the adolescent and her parents consign their admissions to the Court record and further agree to the extension of the measures, but only for a period of 6 months. [ 3 ] Context [ 4 ] Since the last judgment, the adolescent remains in foster care.

She evolves generally well in this milieu, although she continues to exhibit manipulation and triangulation in order to obtain what she wants. [ 5 ] Presently, X visits her family on weekends; her father on Saturday and her mother on Sunday. [ 6 ] It is pertinent to note that before October 2014, X’s visits with her father progress to include overnight stays. When the father accedes to his daughter’s request that he give her a tattoo, social services reduce the access rights with the removal of the overnight.

Since that time, the situation remains static, even though the Director considers that this environment is the most appropriate for the adolescent to eventually return to his care. [ 7 ] The caseworker cites concerns as to the father’s availability and ability to structure his daughter. Namely, she affirms that the reintegration process of the adolescent awaits father undertaking certain measures and being a more proactive parent, namely having his daughter be responsible for her actions, enforce house rules and have her contribute to household chores.

Specifically, it is recommended: • That the father show them his parenting plan while the adolescent is in his care; • That the father complete an approved parenting program specific to the child’s age level; [ 8 ] The caseworker also mentions requesting an extension although there is an intention of returning the adolescent progressively to her father’s environment - no specific time frame is put forth.

The one year period of placement is deemed appropriate in case the situation doesn’t work as to the father, the whole in view of avoiding the requirement of a new Court order. [ 9 ] At the hearing, the father exhibits documents proving his successful completion of a parenting program. The caseworker

declares that this evidence satisfies the recommended measure to this effect and is therefore no longer an impediment to reintegration. [ 10 ] The father testifies to understanding the requirements of a parenting plan and intending to pursue the rules already in place with the foster family. He is ready to cooperate with [Center A] to this end. He indicates that rules are presently in place for his daughter in his home, namely a curfew and household chores. [ 11 ] The mother neither participates in the measures nor cooperates with social services.

She only communicates with the caseworker in regard to contacts with her daughter.

Communication and trust are still problematic issues within the mother/daughter relationship. [ 12 ] At the hearing, the mother states wanting to eventually be considered as a milieu that could receive X and possible to share the custody with the father. [ 13 ] Analysis and decision [ 14 ] In the present case, the Court determines pertinent to underline the principles and objectives of the Youth Protection Act. [ 15 ] Firstly, the most fundamental principle is that all measures must tend to maintain the child in his family environment and work towards the end of a situation of endangerment. [ 16 ] Furthermore (our underlining): 2.3.

Any intervention in respect of a child and the child's parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger; and (

b) must, if the circumstances are appropriate, favour the means that allow the child and the child's parents to take an active

part in making decisions and choosing measures that concern them. Every person, body or institution having responsibilities under this Act towards a child and the child's parents must encourage the participation of the child and the parents, and the involvement of the community. The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. [ 17 ] The evidence demonstrates the behavioural difficulties justifying the application of protective measures have greatly improved and that she is able to function positively. [ 18 ] The [Center A] awaits the parents taking positive steps towards the rehabilitation of their parental capacities, seemingly in default of their guidance and support.

At the hearing, the caseworker indicates that no specific steps have been taken with the parents as to the parenting plan, although there are intentions to this effect. [ 19 ] In not actively promoting and assisting the parents, and particularly the father, in the elaboration of a parenting plan, the [Center A] fails to fully execute its mandate of aid, counsel and assistance, all of which contribute to maintaining the adolescent in placement. [ 20 ] [Center A] continues to insist on this step before considering progressing the adolescent’s situation, as is cited in the Court report: That the father show this agency his parenting plan for X while she is in his care, if this plan is not prepared, the agency will seek other placements for X (exhibit D-3, p. 3). [ 21 ] The expectation that the parents complete this step in an autonomous fashion is unreasonable and not concurrent to the adolescent’s best interests to the effect that the interventions work diligently towards the end of the situation of endangerment and, minimally, towards the end of placement. [ 22 ] The Court therefore specifically orders that this measure be shouldered by social services in view of advancing the situation of the adolescent.

With dedicated and diligent application of the protective measures ordered, the Court considers that six months of further placement is required, while maintaining other measures for one year. [ 23 ] In order to be coherent, the contacts between the adolescent and her parents should also evolve in conjunction with the viewed reintegration plan. [ 24 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion for extension and revision of a Court decision; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger;

[ 27 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the decision rendered on January 8, 2014; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a foster family for 6 months; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to collaborate with [Center A]; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents authorize any documents required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the [Center A] meet with the parents as well as the adolescent within one month of the date of the present in order to establish a parenting plan to include a contract of house rules and consequences, to be signed by all parties; [ 32 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to file a copy of said parenting plan and contract of house rules in the Court record; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family for one year; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: February 20, 2015