2019 QCCQ 14695, 2019 QCCQ 14695

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911421 2019 QCCQ 14695 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005373-173 DATE: September 18, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2003 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant 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 ] On September 24, 2018, the Court revises and extends for nine months various protective measures in force in relation to X’s behavioural difficulties including her placement in a rehabilitation center. [ 2 ] Alleging that the adolescent’s behaviours continue to put her at risk, the Director of Youth Protection applies for the pursuit of their implication. [ 3 ] Although the parties initially agree on an interim measure with the objective of verifying the viability of the adolescent’s reintegration home, at the hearing on the final measures, the parties submit divergent positions. [ 4 ] The Director, alleging that the adolescent requires continued rehabilitation in a neutral environment, seeks the pursuit of measures until her majority including her placement.

X submits that she can continue her rehabilitation in her family environment. Her parents, while recognizing that challenges remain, ask the Court to consider that she has made sufficient positive changes to justify her remaining in her family environment while returning to a rehabilitation center on weekends to continue her implication in services. [ 5 ] Context [ 6 ] There are initially little changes in X’s overall functioning as of the last judgment.

Although the structure of the rehabilitation center is able to stem her problematic behaviours, in her family unit the situation remains fragile as she repeatedly defies her parent’s authority and the rules in place. [ 7 ] As of November 2018, X benefits from a psychological follow-up. [ 8 ] X’s visitations home vacillates until the end of March, mostly in regards to her behaviours. As of this time, there is a period of positive progression. X starts going home on a regular basis and respects the structure and routine in place. The family dynamic improves.

She also invests herself more fully in rehabilitative services. [ 9 ] In May, the parents verbalize being ready to take their daughter back home as of the end of the measure, with the continued implication of the Director to support her reintegration. The Director applies for the revision and extension of measures, initially with her return home being recommended. [ 10 ] By agreement between the parties, the Court proceeds separately on the issue of endangerment and the protective measures.

[ 11 ] As such, on June 4, 2019, while declaring that the security and the development of the adolescent are still in danger, the Court renders an interim order for three months permitting her progressive reintegration in her family environment, the whole with the objective of verifying of a return home on a prolonged basis. [ 12 ] As of this judgment, X remains mostly in her parental environment, only returning occasionally to the rehabilitation center. [ 13 ] Although the first month is without incident, as of July there is a gradual resurgence of the adolescent’s problematic behaviours.

She starts not coming home on time, smoking marijuana and engaging with negative peers. On one occasion, she is returned home by police officers after having been found in a park with persons consuming drugs and alcohol. [ 14 ] On August 4, X returns to the rehabilitation center for an overnight stay. She has hickies on her neck and admits to another girl having taken drugs (Molly and LSD).

Her parents have little information concerning their daughter’s boyfriend nor of the circumstances giving way to this situation. [ 15 ] The Director revokes the progressive reintegration and the adolescent returns to the rehabilitation center and resumes weekend visitations home. No issues occur as of then, with X declaring her intention to make proper decisions and have a normal life. She also declares to her parents having ceased all drug consumption. [ 16 ] In her testimony, X minimizes her behaviours as well as the risky situations she put herself in.

Contrary to her affirmations to her parents, she testifies to maintaining her marijuana consumption, indicating not having the choice with her friends. [ 17 ] While recognizing that challenges remain, her parents underline their daughter’s progression to date as concerns her schooling, her ability to engage with the family and to follow rules. Positive changes are also stemming from her psychological follow-up and participation in weekly AA meetings. [ 18 ] Analysis and decision [ 19 ] The Director is implicated in the adolescent’s situation since 2016.

Despite the measures put in place, the eventual result is her placement in a rehabilitation center in reason of the persistence of her high-risk behaviours. [ 20 ] Since August 2017, the parties attempt three integrations in her family environment. Repeatedly, X returns to a pattern of destructive and oppositional behaviours and this, despite her parent’s applied structure and investment in services. [ 21 ] This being the case, there can also be gleaned that over time there are positive changes relating to X making discernible efforts to revise her behaviours and attitudes.

Although such is the case, she maintains an attraction to high-risk situations and is subject to negative influences, especially outside the stringent structure of the rehabilitation center. [ 22 ] Her parents are well invested and offer a structured and adequate environment. Notwithstanding, the Court cannot discount the fact that outside the confines of the rehabilitation center, X repeatedly returns to the high-risk behaviours.

The issues which came forth during the summer testify to such, especially when the Court considers that the stakes had been clearly established. [ 23 ] This being insufficient to stem her problematic behaviours, X still clearly remains fragile to her impulses and peer pressure. As such, her return home is premature.

Although such is the case, the Court considers that her progression to date justifies that the situation be revised at the end of the school year. [ 24 ] For these reasons, the Court determines that X remains ill-equipped to deal with FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES the security and development of the adolescent still in danger; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an institution operating a rehabilitation center chosen by Director of Youth Protection A; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures that 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; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 31 ] ALLOWS the parties to proceed to a progressive reintegration of the adolescent in her family environment following mutual agreement; [ 32 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until June 26, 2020; [ 33 ] 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 Angela Nevard Attorney for the Applicant Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: June 4 (judgment on endangerment) and September 18, 2019 (judgment on protective measures) Date of signature: November 5, 2019