2014 QCCQ 14224, 2014 QCCQ 14224

Protection de la jeunesse — 142318 2014 QCCQ 14224 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001103-081 DATE: May 27, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the district A, C.Y.P.C., working in city A APPLICANT and X, residing and domiciled in city B, Québec, district B YOUTH and A, residing and domiciled in city B, Québec, district B MOTHER and B, residing and domiciled in city B, Québec, district B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The applicant is addressing the Court, asking a review of the decision rendered on April 9, 2013 by the Honourable Louis A.

Legault, J.C.Q., in the situation of X, born on […], 1996. [ 2 ] At that time, the Court maintained the status of endangerment and entrusted her to a reception center for a period of one year with the possibility of reintegrating a foster family, if the situation allowed for it. [ 3 ] The applicant believes that the situation remains serious, in such a manner that there is reason to maintain the adolescent, now 17 years old, in an environment providing a maximum of structure until she reaches majority. [ 4 ] The parents as well as the adolescent, present and represented, do not agree with the recommendation, expressing their desire for the young girl to return within her community of city B. [ 5 ] The record, the admissions and the exhibits filed at the hearing mainly reveal the following. [ 6 ] Youth Protection has been involved in X's life for many years now.

She has been living in a reception center for approximately six years and she is currently struggling with numerous difficulties, which result in important self-destruction behaviour on her part. The young woman even tried to commit suicide no later than last autumn. [ 7 ] This event was followed by some others, on which occasion she injured herself, requiring hospitalisation.

Upon her return at the reception center, the incidents continued, the adolescent throwing fits and tantrums and physically abusing the social workers. [ 8 ] Given the evidence, it appears that the adolescent benefits from a sporadic psychological follow-up, but no psychiatric assessment was yet completed in order to identify the exact nature of the problem, even though the gravity of the actions she committed has brought up many questions. [ 9 ] That been said, her current educator indicates that steps have been initiated in this regard, but for now, it is impossible to know when the young lady will have access to the care she needs. [ 10 ] The father also testified, explaining to the Court the reasons why he wishes for his daughter to come back home.

From his point of view, he mainly sees in her a person capable of helping his wife, whom suffers from certain functional limitations, take charge of the household and care for her brothers and sisters. [ 11 ] Concerning her behavioural struggles, he says that it is difficult for him to identify them, given X has been in foster care for such a long period of time.

[ 12 ] He strongly believes that, as a father, he can help his child, and that it will be beneficial for her to carry on with her life apprenticeship within her family. [ 13 ] It is obvious to the Court that the adolescent’s situation is worrisome.

It seems that, for an unknown reason, it was neglected to complete a proper assessment of her psychological state of mind in order to come to a diagnosis and intervene efficiently with her. [ 14 ] Unfortunately, it is probably too late for such an intervention, but is spite of that, X deserves that efforts be made by Youth Protection towards it. [ 15 ] Thus, a precise assessment of her mental health should be done as soon as possible, followed by action steps reflecting the diagnosis. [ 16 ] This time around, we can only hope the adolescent receives the attention she rightfully deserves.

In the meantime, there is no question the young woman will not be returned to her community, given the current risks it represents. [ 17 ] Furthermore, we have to keep in mind she will be reaching majority at the end of the year, therefore it is advisable that her return within her community is properly prepared. [ 18 ] The contacts with her family should be gradually increased and, if possible in any way, visits to her community should be facilitated.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] REVISES the decision rendered on April 9, 2013; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1996, are still in danger accordingly to

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of the adolescent in a reception center until December 22, 2014 with a progressive reintegration within her family, if the situation allows it; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the director see that the adolescent and her parents receive aid, counsel and assistance for the same period; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent undergo a psychiatric assessment as soon as possible and that the measures recommended by the professional be implemented; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be supervised by the director in terms of modalities and frequency, and that they be encouraged; [ 26 ] ORDERS to any peace officer to collaborate in the execution of the present; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent’s situation to the director who shall then see that the measure is carried out. __________________________________ Jean-Pierre Gervais, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Provencher Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Attorney for the applicant M e Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Attorney for the adolescent M e Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the father M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: April 23 rd , 2014