2013 QCCQ 17112, 2013 QCCQ 17112

Protection de la jeunesse — 135698 2013 QCCQ 17112 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025803-123 DATE: November 4, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1997 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 4, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] On November 22, 2012, the Court ordered that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one month with integration to her mother’s care when she had completed the A program. Furthermore, that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 3 ] In June 2013, the court was presented with a motion for revision, by the father, asking that the adolescent be entrusted to his care. On June 26, 2013, X was entrusted to her father’s care until the hearing on the merits of the case set for September 9, 2013.

However, the adolescent presented a motion under 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act asking to be entrusted to her mother’s care. The motion was granted on August 1, 2013, and the hearing on the merits of the case set for November 4, 2013.

Finally, on October 18, 2013, the Director of Youth Protection filed a motion for extension of the order of November 22, 2012. [ 4 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the DYP’s motion are the following: • The progressive reintegration to the mother continued and by December 2012, the adolescent was fully integrated to the mother’s care; • By the time of integration, the mother had completed the A group; • Since December 2012, the adolescent and her parents have actively participated in the intervention by the Transition Diversion Program, which remains involved with the family; • The adolescent and parents have also made efforts to find appropriate solutions to the present problems and to develop better communication with each other; • Until April 2013, the adolescent participated in the A program;

• During this same period, the adolescent demonstrated certain behavioural problems, such as lying, unaccountability, procrastination at school, and ongoing marijuana consumption; • As a result, the relationship between the adolescent and the mother deteriorated; • In addition, the relationship between the parents remained conflictual, which negatively affected the adolescent; • To try to address these difficulties, from March to May 2013, the adolescent and parents attended several therapy sessions with a private therapist, but this had minimal success in resolving the issues; • In May 2013, after a brief unauthorized absence from the mother’s home, the adolescent went to live with her father; • The youth protection worker supported this move for a trial period, despite the mother’s disagreement, in order to avoid the adolescent’s return to placement; • This period with the father appeared to have been without significant difficulties; • However, by August 2013, for financial reasons the father could no longer maintain the adolescent in his care, and she returned to the care of the mother; • Since August 2013, the adolescent has managed well in the mother’s care in terms of accountability and communication, although she has maintained ongoing marijuana consumption; • In September 2013, the adolescent began attending A School and has stated her commitment to completing her high school education. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother’s care and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of six months. [ 6 ] The father was not present at the hearing although he was served with a copy of the motion.

The father discussed DYP’s recommendations with the youth worker and agreed with them. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 7 ] The mother admits the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. The mother states that the adolescent is now attending adult education and wants to pursue her studies.

The mother says that the communications with her daughter has improved and that overall X is doing well. [ 8 ] The adolescent admits the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the measures recommended by DYP. [ 9 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], youth worker, and read the Court report filed by DYP as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that the adolescent’s situation has stabilized over the last few months. X wishes to be entrusted to her mother’s care and intends to pursue her studies.

The parents still have a conflictual relationship, but are no longer seeing each other. Therefore, X can maintain a distance from her parents’ conflicts. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of six months.

The adolescent has matured and must now focus on school and developing her autonomy. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] Grants the motion for extension; [ 14 ] Orders that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 15 ] Orders that the parents and the adolescent collaborate with DYP and meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 16 ] Orders that the adolescent submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP and Takes judicial notice that the adolescent agrees to undergo random drug testing; [ 17 ] Recommends that the adolescent attend school or find work amounting to a full time commitment; [ 18 ] Orders that the adolescent receive all health care services required; [ 19 ] Recommends that the adolescent receive counselling services; [ 20 ] Recommends that the parents continue to follow the recommendations of their parental capacity assessment; [ 21 ] Orders that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family for a period of six months; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out;

[ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. Signed November 13, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me François Pelletier Counsel for the adolescent Date of hearing: November 4, 2013