r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 17790

Protection de la jeunesse — 168704 2016 QCCQ 17790 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005049-161 DATE: October 3, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2002 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 ] On July 6, 2016, the Court revises the protective measures in place regarding X in regards to a situation of serious behavioural disturbance.

Determining that it is premature to return the adolescent to her family environment, the Court maintains her placement in a rehabilitation center until the end of the summer period, while continuing various other measures of aid and counsel for one year. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents an application seeking the revision of said order, once again alleging that X requires continued rehabilitation in a neutral environment and this, until the end of the school year (June 30, 2017). [ 3 ] The parents consign their admissions and agree to the Director’s proposed orientation.

X doesn’t contest the application. [ 4 ] Analysis and decision [ 5 ] In virtue of the preceding judgment, there is a progressive reintegration of the adolescent in her home environment during summer 2016 and her full return at the end of August. [ 6 ] It is specifically agreed that X register for school in September and participate in services from Virage to address her drug consumption. There is also the continued objective that the parents be more consistent as to their authority. [ 7 ] The family dynamic quickly degenerates. X’s problematic behaviours resurge and intensify.

She refuses to be accountable to her parents, rejects their rules and is disrespectful. [ 8 ] One of the significant elements of contention between X and her parents is her relationship with Mr. C, her twenty year old boyfriend. X maintains contacts with him, notwithstanding her parent’s disapproval. She is insistent as to her rights to see whom she pleases. [ 9 ] On two successive occasions, X runs away from home to meet with her boyfriend in Town A.

On September 6 th , she is found at his residence by the police authorities. [ 10 ] Following this incident, the parents request that their daughter return to placement, stating being unable to manage her behaviours. Met at the police station by the caseworker, X is unable to explain why she didn’t come home or call her parents. She considers being in security with her boyfriend and refuses to consider ceasing the relationship as she loves him. She doesn’t understand why she can’t go home.

[ 11 ] Since that time, the adolescent remains in a rehabilitation center. In this structured environment, she still struggles with accountability and respect, continuing to blame others for her situation. [ 12 ] Clearly, the attempt at reintegration fails before the lack of durable change in the family dynamic. [ 13 ] Having been given much freedom by her family environment, she disregards the authority of others and repeatedly makes decisions putting her at risk.

The parents, although well-intended, have to work on means of exercising an efficient control of their daughter’s actions. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that X continues to require the structure and neutrality of a rehabilitation center. Her reintegration in her family environment will only be possible when she and her parents are able to accept, assume and respect each other’s defined roles. [ 15 ] After considering the evidence, the Court determines that the Director’s evaluation and orientation respect the adolescent’s best interests as well as the principles of the law. [ 16 ] As to Mr.

C, the parents ask that there be no contacts with X, as they consider that he is a negative influence.

The Court agrees and X indicates not contesting this prohibition. [ 17 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application for revision of a Court decision; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be following agreement between the parties; [ 22 ] PROHIBITS the adolescent from having any contacts, either directly or indirectly, with Mr.

C; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 25 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until June 30, 2017; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Anne Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: October 3, 2016