r v. A, 2014 QCCQ 14510

Protection de la jeunesse — 142711 2014 QCCQ 14510 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-000426-004 DATE: May 8, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE P. BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: No: 640-41-000426-004 X, born on […] 1999 ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner v.

A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR REVISION (section 95 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing 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 submitted a motion for the revision of a judgment rendered by Judge Denyse Leduc on October 16, 2012, concerning X, now 14 years old. ISSUES RAISED [ 2 ] The applicant sought a placement of six months in a rehabilitation centre, followed by reintegration into a foster home. [ 3 ] The youth and the mother proposed an immediate placement in a foster family.

THE FACTS [ 4 ] The previous judgment ordered a placement for a period of almost eight months in a rehabilitation centre, followed by reintegration into a foster family, where the youth would remain until her majority. [ 5 ] The youth was reintegrated into a foster home in September 2013 and everything was going well until just before the Christmas Holidays of 2013. [ 6 ] Starting from there, the situation deteriorated and the youth’s behaviour created serious concerns for the foster parents. [ 7 ] On March 4, 2014, the Director of Youth Protection intervened with the youth because she had expressed suicidal thoughts. [ 8 ] Informed of the situation, the Director went to pick the youth up at a friend’s house, with the assistance of the police. [ 9 ] The youth was cooperative and she was brought to the clinic to be assessed.

The medical staff determined that the youth needed to remain at the clinic to complete the assessment. [ 10 ] However, the youth left the clinic without finishing the assessment. [ 11 ] On the same day, at 4:30 p.m., the Director learned on Facebook that the youth had mutilated herself by cutting her wrist. [ 12 ] The following day, she was picked up at the school by the Director and taken back to the clinic. [ 13 ] The youth was not cooperative that time. She even stated that she wanted to join her father, who had passed away.

[ 14 ] Since she is very impulsive, a security guard was present to make sure that the youth would not leave the clinic. Transferred by airplane from Town A to the hospital in Town B, she was seen by Dr. A. She was also assessed by a psychologist and a social worker. [ 15 ] On March 6, 2014, she was released from the clinic and placed at the group home in Town B under immediate protection measures. [ 16 ] The hearing under

section 95 took place on April 8, 2014 in Town B. The Director asked for a placement at the rehabilitation centre, alleging that the youth needs to be stabilized. The youth and the mother disagreed. ANALYSIS [ 17 ] The father died in 2000. The mother was no longer able to care for X. X and her siblings had to be placed in foster homes. The youth has been placed in many foster homes since then. [ 18 ] Since 2012, the mother has lived in Town C and in Town D; she is now living in Town E. She has no permanent address.

She has made no significant changes in her lifestyle and she does not collaborate with the Director. [ 19 ] The situation described by Judge Leduc in paragraph 4 of her judgment has prevailed since then. [ 20 ] The youth's statement of March 4, 2014 was not her first expression of suicidal thoughts.

She has expressed suicidal thoughts from time to time since March 2012. [ 21 ] When the youth says that she wants to be where is father is, it must be remembered that her father committed suicide in 2000. [ 22 ] Between December 2013 and March 2014, the youth displayed important behaviour problems at school and at her foster home. She was defying the rules, was not respecting the curfews, was drinking alcohol, and was generally displaying important behavioural problems. She had to be placed at the group home once again. [ 23 ] After the events of March 4 and 5, 2014, she saw Dr.

A, who confirmed the suicidal ideations, the daily substance abuse, the self-mutilation on her left arm, and her general impulsiveness. He writes in his report that it is much better for her to be at the group home, at least until the medical and risk assessments would be completed. [ 24 ] Dr.

A referred the youth to a psychologist, who reported the same problems and made similar recommendations. [ 25 ] Since being back at the group home in Town B, she has run away twice, on March 11 and 18. [ 26 ] The clinical advisor of the group home in Town B, [Social Worker 2], confirms the opinion of the other professionals, that X has not been at the group home long enough to allow for a complete assessment of her risks and needs. [ 27 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] is right when he expresses major concern for the youth: her security is clearly in danger, so that she needs a structured environment such as the group home for her own safety. [ 28 ] If the situation allows, the youth could be reintegrated into a foster home before the end of the period of placement at the rehabilitation centre.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion. [ 30 ] REVISES the decision rendered by Leduc J. on October 16, 2012. [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth are still in danger. [ 32 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, with possible reintegration into a foster home after three months, if the situation allows. [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that the rehabilitation centre be the group home in Town B. [ 34 ] ORDERS that the youth receive the health care and health services required by her condition, notably that the youth meet a psychologist on a regular basis. [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the mother and the youth, to be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to the terms and frequency. [ 36 ] ORDERS that the mother cooperate actively with the Director on a regular basis, and that she take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered. [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend a treatment program for her alcohol abuse and also that she attend counselling for her personal issues. [ 38 ] ORDERS that the Director provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth until her majority, and also to the mother, if she cooperates and if she shows an interest. [ 39 ] ORDERS any police force to cooperate in the execution of the present judgment. [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the youth’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the present judgment.

[ 41 ] RECOMMENDS the application of the recommendations listed on page 3 of the report prepared by Mrs. [Social Worker 1] on March 25, 2014. __________________________________ CLAUDE P. BIGUÉ, J.C.Q. Mtre. Suzanne Arpin For the petitioner Mtre. Yan Massé For the youth Mtre. Claude Beaudet For the mother Date of hearing: April 8, 2014