r v. A, 2017 QCCQ 20803

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711164 2017 QCCQ 20803 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005373-173 DATE: September 18, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2003 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 seeks the application of various measures of protection in regards to the adolescent X, alleging that her security and development are in danger in reason of her serious behavioural disturbance.

More notably, the Director recommends that the adolescent reside in a rehabilitation center until June 30, 2018, with other measures of aid and counsel for one year. [ 2 ] The adolescent as well as her parents endorse the Director’s evaluation and orientation. [ 3 ] Analysis and decision [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection initially intervenes in the adolescent’s life in May 2016.

She resides with her parents. [ 5 ] The adolescent presents multiple behavioural issues which challenge her family environment and endanger her security and development, namely: • Verbal and physical violence; • Opposition; • Defiance of authority and rejection of rules; • Delinquency; • Frequentation of negative influences; • Lying; [ 6 ] Through the services of Santé mentale jeunesse , the adolescent receives a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Both the adolescent and her parents question this diagnosis.

X refuses a follow-up as well as her participation in an anger management group. [ 7 ] On August 24, 2016, voluntary measures intervene entrusting the adolescent in a rehabilitation center until the end of the year, with a follow-up for one year. In December, the parties agree to pursue placement for a further 6 months. [ 8 ] In the rehabilitation center setting, X progressively adopts adequate behaviours, situation which is also reflected in her home environment, where visitation is regular.

[ 9 ] The parents cooperate fully with the interventions. They work on establishing and maintaining clear rules and consequences with their daughter. [ 10 ] Considering the evolution of X’s situation, the parties determine to reintegrate her home. The parents establish a set of reasonable rules for their daughter, to which she adheres. She progressively returns home in June 2017. [ 11 ] The adolescent’s previous problematic behaviours return quickly and this, despite numerous services being put in place to shoulder her reintegration. She runs away, is oppositional and rejects any form of accompaniment.

Before the degeneration of their daughter’s behaviours, the parents request her return to placement. [ 12 ] On August 10, X returns to a rehabilitation center, where she remains to this day. Although she is able to recognize having made questionable decisions and to not taking her parent’s rules seriously, she lacks introspection as to the reasons underpinning this situation. [ 13 ] The parents and the Director consider that the adolescent requires further rehabilitation in a neutral environment.

After considering the evidence, the Court concurs. [ 14 ] The father produces a list of rules and conditions agreed upon with his daughter, meant to clarify the expectations of her family environment in view of her eventual return home (P-1). X testifies to her commitment to respect this agreement, while recognizing the various issues constituting the foundation of the situation of endangerment. [ 15 ] The evidence demonstrates that X is able to reclaim her equilibrium within the structure and neutrality of a rehabilitation center.

Although her parents establish and maintain a structured living environment for their daughter, she is presently unable to integrate the need to respect such, resorting to negative behaviours. [ 16 ] It is therefore necessary to continue to work towards understanding the reasons why the family dynamic doesn’t support the adolescent adopting prosocial behaviours.

To this end, the Court determines that mental health services, including a psychological follow-up, will afford the clarity to focus the interventions. [ 17 ] The orientation proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, which receives the approval of the adolescent as well as her parents, corresponds to the situation of endangerment, while offering a clear vision of the adolescent’s needs.

As such, the Court endorses the application. [ 18 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of serious behavioural disturbance; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A until June 30, 2018; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receives certain health care and health services namely a psychological follow-up, as long as deemed necessary; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family for a period of 12 months; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: September 18, 2017