2013 QCCQ 10544, 2013 QCCQ 10544

Protection de la jeunesse — 133289 2013 QCCQ 10544 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001498-127 DATE: July 30, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in Town A, Québec, district A Child -and- A , residing and domiciled in Town A, Québec, district A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking the Court to review a decision rendered by the Honourable Nancy McKenna, J.C.Q., on October 30, 2012.

In her decision, she declared that the security and development of the adolescent were endangered and ordered some measures aiming to improve the situation. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the youth, the mother and the applicant are all represented. [ 3 ] From the evidence heard and the various documents contained in the record, the Court notes essentially the following. [ 4 ] X is a 16-year-old young boy who, since a while, meets with some behaviour problems that lead him to a placement in a reception center for a period of six months that falls due at the end of July 2013. [ 5 ] In brief, it is a matter of suicidal ideation – he even concretely attempted to his life at some occasions – in addition to aggressiveness and non-respect of the rules that take him in hand. [ 6 ] Even though the mother and the youth mainly recognize the veracity of the facts alleged in the petition, they both precise that these behaviours, according to their perception, have water down and seem to return to normal. [ 7 ] As for Mr. [Social Worker 1], the applicant, he testifies that he is seriously concerned about the youth’s suicidal threats because this latter had to deal with many incidents of that nature in the past; his father, his eldest brother and his best friend committed suicide.

This is the reason why Mr. [Social Worker 1] is far from considering this kind of remarks and behaviours thoughtlessly. [ 8 ] He considers that a placement of one year in a reception center is imperative to, firstly, intervene with X, and after to assure his reintegration with his mother. [ 9 ] The mother agrees with this point of view while the adolescent believes that a placement for six months would be enough. [ 10 ] In fact, there positions are not divergent, except for the duration, the applicant wanting to make sure to have sufficient room for manoeuvre. [ 11 ] He nevertheless esteems that it is absolutely conceivable to begin a progressive reintegration in the family once the youth’s situation is stabilized, what he believes could be done in the first six months. [ 12 ] In the opinion of the Court, this view is realistic and liable to serve the youth’s interests and to ensure a successful reintegration in his family. [ 13 ] Consequently, there is reason to endorse the recommendation and to order the placement of the youth in a reception center for a period of 12 months, understanding that after the first six, the progressive reintegration in his family could be initiated, if the situation

allows it obviously. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] ORDERS the placement of X, born on […], 1996, in a reception center for a period of 12 months with a reintegration in his family after six months if the situations allows it; [ 17 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and to his mother for the same period; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his mother collaborate with the DYP to correct the situation; [ 19 ] ORDERS that all contacts between the adolescent and his family be encouraged and supervised by the DYP in terms of frequency and conditions; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be assessed by a psychologist and that all the recommendations made following this assessment be followed; [ 21 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of this enactment; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent's situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measure is carried out. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

M e Robert-André Adam Counsel for the DYP M e Cassandra Neptune Counsel for the adolescent M e Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 4, 2013