2014 QCCQ 15500, 2014 QCCQ 15500

Protection de la jeunesse — 143521 2014 QCCQ 15500 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004529-130 DATE: March 19, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 1999 Adolescent DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision and extension of a court decision rendered on September 4, 2013 concerning X, born on […], 1999. [ 2 ] The preceding judgment determines that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of a situation of parenting neglect. As protective measures, the Court orders various measures of aid, counsel and assistance for a period of one year, as well the placement of the adolescent in a reception center for a period of 6 months.

[ 3 ] The present motion alleges that the mitigated evolution of the adolescent's situation and persistence of her behavioural issues, justify the revision of the measures, particularly in order to pursue her placement in a reception center. [ 4 ] The parents, duly served of the proceedings, are absent. The Petitioner testifies to the effect that both are aware, and in agreement, with the recommendations.

Through her attorney, the adolescent notes her admissions in the Court record and consents to the conclusions sought. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] Since the last court order, the adolescent remains in a reception center. [ 7 ] The intervention seeks to primarily work with the family in regards to establishing conditions of visitation and reducing triangulation, elements of structure essential to control the adolescent's behavioral difficulties and counter altercations. [ 8 ] Despite boundaries of conduct being put in place at the reception center and in the family environment, the evidence demonstrates that there is little evolution on this front. [ 9 ] The adolescent continues to manipulate in order to avoid consequences and rules, situation that the parents facilitate by not fully cooperating with the intervention, nor coherently applying the measures put in force.

This is particularly the case in the maternal environment, the mother demonstrating consistent difficulties in managing her daughter's oppositional behaviours. Although the father is more able to apply his parental authority, his efforts are circumvented by the mother's laxity. [ 10 ] In the reception center setting, the adolescent resists the interventions, especially as to her impulsivity and emotion control. She has a tendency to place herself as the victim and project blame on others. [ 11 ] Consequently, the adolescent's behavioural problems continue to degenerate.

The evidence demonstrates: ➢ Opposition to the rules; ➢ Sexual promiscuity; ➢ Drug consumption; ➢ Frequenting non recommendable persons; ➢ Running away from her mother's home and the reception center, on a repeating basis; [ 12 ] In her school setting, the adolescent presents consistent academic difficulties, absenteeism and lack of motivation. In October 2013, the adolescent is found intoxicated by the police at a man's house, and this, during school hours. This incident spurs the decision to withdraw her from her school and have her pursue her studies at the reception center.

Although her academic difficulties remain present, she functions well. [ 13 ] The contacts between the adolescent and her parents are inconsistent. The mother often cancels meetings or is late. The father mostly sees his daughter during the mother's contact periods, not making himself available for specific determination of contacts. [ 14 ] This inconsistency is also reflected in the parent's implication in the intervention. [ 15 ] Recently, the mother expresses a need for respite in regards to her daughter's visits.

Overwhelmed by her daughter's behaviours, the Director observes that the mother's difficulties in applying limits and consequences result in her fleeing confrontation by reducing contacts with her daughter. [ 16 ] The father offers a more structured environment. He seeks to reprise his full parental role and receive his daughter as soon as possible. The adolescent is in agreement with this project. [ 17 ] X needs to continue to work on the various issues impeding her return to a family structure, namely the management of her emotions, safe decision-making and accountability for her actions.

This also has to transfer in her behaviours during her visits home, in order to demonstrate a reduced for rehabilitation. [ 18 ] The mother retains the custody of the adolescent. It remains unclear whether the intervention will require the determination of the family environment to which the adolescent will transfer, after her need for rehabilitation ceases. The parties will participate to a revision table at the appropriate time, in order to evaluate the need to pursue protective measures and, which these might be.

Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to coincide the end of the period of protective measures with the end of placement, in order to clarify the continued needs of the adolescent at that time, if such is the case. [ 19 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and the development of the adolescent continue to be in danger and that it is appropriate that she continue to benefit from the application of protective measures.

As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights and the best interests, of the adolescent. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 23 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on September 4, 2013;

[ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre until June 24, 2014; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined upon between mutual agreement between the parties; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family until June 24, 2014; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive certain health care and health services, namely that she undergo a follow-up concerning her drug consumption; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Amélie St-Denis Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: March 19, 2014