2019 QCCQ 11667, 2019 QCCQ 11667

Protection de la jeunesse — 192245 2019 QCCQ 11667 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001542-122 DATE: January 10, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , youth protection worker duly authorised by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and X, born on [...], 2004 Teenager and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection A submits a motion to review and extend a decision rendered by the honourable Denyse Leduc on October 11, 2017, ordering the placement of the teenager in a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year with reintegration into a foster home until the age of majority, the foster home being identified as the one of C. [ 2 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on January 10, 2019. [ 3 ] At the hearing, X was present and represented by Mtre Yan Massé. The father, also present, was represented by Mtre Michel Grenier. The mother was nowhere to be found since she was released from the Roberval Prison. Despite that fact, Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub had conversations with the mother and acts on her behalf.

Mtre Magdelena Lempicka represents the applicant. [ 4 ] The teenager and her father share the same position: they would like that X be entrusted to a foster family and, if not possible, that the placement in a reception centre be for a shorter period of time. [ 5 ] Neither the teenager nor the father testified. [ 6 ] The following documents were filed in evidence: − Revision report, signed by Mrs. [social worker 1]; − Attendance report from the school, dated December 18, 2018; − Incident reports from the school; − Medical record of the youth in October and November 2018; − Observation report from the rehabilitation centre, dated April 4, 2018; [ 7 ] For the Applicant, [social worker 1] testified.

First, she said that the mother called her when she was in prison and was made aware of the hearing. She would be in Roberval, but the social worker does not have any address. [ 8 ] The Court has preponderant evidence for the following facts:

− X, as ordered, was reintegrated in the foster family of Mrs. C. Not long after, when the school started, X has skipped many classes. − X exhibits serious behavioural disturbances in the community, at home and at school when she is there. − She does not respect the foster family, the house rules and the curfews and sometimes she does not come back for the night. [ 9 ] Despite the services provided, the situation is deteriorating.

The foster mother is overwhelmed by the situation. [ 10 ] To help them, a written agreement was signed at the beginning of November between the teenager and the mother of the foster family with regards to the house rules. The Social Worker assisted them.

Shortly after the agreement was reached, X did not respect it. [ 11 ] Also in November, X made a suicidal attempt and she was hospitalized for two days. [ 12 ] When back in the foster family, the same difficult behaviours continued: she trashed her room, threw things at the foster mother. [ 13 ] X was placed in a reception centre under provisional measures on December 4, 2018. [ 14 ] The Director alleges that for the time being, the situation of the teenager requires the structure of a rehabilitation centre. [ 15 ] X knows that she needs help.

She would like to receive this help outside the reception centre. [ 16 ] When we read the report made by the reception centre last April, globally, she was able to improve her behaviour. She is described as very smart. In school, she is a good student. [ 17 ] On February 4, 2013, X was placed again in the foster family of Mrs. C and this, for a period of eight months. [ 18 ] Many judgments were rendered regarding X’s situation. On October 8, 2013, the parents signed a draft agreement in which they acknowledged their personal problems and the fact that they did not take steps to solve them.

So, X was entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 19 ] In 2014, Judge Denyse Leduc ordered the placement of X in the foster home of Mrs. C until she reaches the age of majority. [ 20 ] On January 6, 2016, Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q., was seized with a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act to review the situation of the child. She was then 11 years old and in grade 6 at school. The life plan of the child was stopped and she was entrusted to another foster family. This, mainly to move her to a different community in order to separate her from community youth group with which she committed criminal acts. [ 21 ] On July 25, 2016, the honourable Denise Descôteaux rendered a decision in which she wrote: [5] The adolescent has serious behavioural disturbances; through her attorney, the adolescent admitted that she would put on

an act, shout and swear at the foster family, not comply with the house rules, curfew or meal times, and avoid doing household chores. In addition, the adolescent assaulted someone in a public place. […] [7] X is a young lady who looks much older than she is. Despite her young age, she uses drugs and drinks on a regular basis. [8]0 Despite all the steps taken, she continued to defy the authority of the foster family, the school and the rehabilitation centre.

The adolescent required daily guidance, direction and counselling to help her with her attitude towards adults, peers, school and rules. (Exact reproduction) [ 22 ] She was then entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of 12 months. [ 23 ] In November 2017, Judge Leduc wrote: − The youth skipped classes regularly, did not respect the authority of her teacher; − She does not respect the authority of her aunt (C); − During a short stay in Town A with her aunt, the police had to look for the youth who had not come back to her aunt’s care; − She was involved in aggressive altercations with peers and was charged of assault on two occasions; − On August 15, 2017, she attacks a peer who had to be hospitalized in Town B.

A few months before, X attended [program A] in Town C to address her issues. It seems that it was not long enough to solve them on a permanent basis. [ 24 ] From the evidence, it is clear that the behavioural disturbances noted few years ago are still present: aggressivity, violence, non- compliance with rules, alcohol and drug consumption, not attending school without proper justification… During the last month, she has not slept at her foster family’s home many times. Sometimes the mother receives X, sometimes the boyfriend’s family hides her.

The boyfriend’s family has to be warned that they could be prosecuted for hiding the youth. [ 25 ] Over the years and all services provided, X had never been assessed by a psychologist. It seems necessary to have a better understanding of X in order to help her properly and efficiently. The father and the teenager are in agreement with this assessment. [ 26 ] The teenager has a heavy background mostly due to her familial environment. This background still impacts her daily life and

she needs to find ways to overcome this situation. [ 27 ] Clearly the behaviour of the teenager renders impossible her reintegration in any foster family. She needs a lot more than that: structure and guidance. She needs to attend school on a regular basis, to respect rules, to react without violence and make better choice for herself. [ 28 ] As for the length of the placement in a reception centre, it all depends on X’s behaviours. The Court will order 12 months with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows to do it.

But first, X must change and must be able to show that her new lifestyle will last when in a more open environment.

FOR THESE MATTERS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 30 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 31 ] ORDERS her placement in a reception centre for a period of 12 months with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the Director judges that the situation allows to do it; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X be assessed by a psychologist within 60 days from the verbal decision given on January 10, 2019; [ 33 ] ORDERS X to attend school on a regular basis; [ 34 ] ORDERS X to collaborate with the Director and with the professionals at the reception centre; [ 35 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection and X to follow any recommendation of the psychologist; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the access rights between the youth and the parents or the foster parents be supervised by the Director as for the modalities and the frequency, and the presence of a third person when it is concerning the mother; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the family and the foster family, namely C, for a period of one year; [ 38 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate to the execution of the measures ordered if required to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in Town D on February 11, 2019 __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. Mtre Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Attorney for the applicant Mtre Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Attorney for the teenager Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Ayoub avocats Inc . Attorney for the mother Mtre Michel Grenier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 10, 2019